[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF NINA KAZMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications
nos. 746/05, 13570/06, 13574/06, 13576/06 and 13579/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 January 2009
This judgment will become
final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Nina Kazmina and
Others v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 December 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in five applications (nos. 746/05, 13570/06,
13574/06, 13576/06 and 13579/06) against the Russian Federation
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by six Russian nationals (“the applicants”).
The applicants' names and the dates of their applications to the
Court appear in the appended table.
-
The applicants in cases nos. 13570/06, 13574/06, 13576/06 and
13579/06 were represented by Mr I. Sivoldayev, a lawyer practising in
Voronezh. The applicant in case no. 746/05 was not represented by a
lawyer. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, the former Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
various dates the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
- The
Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and
merits of the application no. 13579/06, but the Court rejected this
objection.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants live in Voronezh, the Voronezh Region. Their names and
dates of birth are indicated in the appended
table.
A. Judgments in the applicants' favour
- The
applicants are pensioners. They sued the local social welfare
authorities for underpaid cost-of-living adjustment of their
pensions. On the dates set out in Appendix I the domestic courts
granted their claims and ordered the welfare authorities of different
districts of Voronezh to pay them the respective amounts. The
judgments became final on the dates indicated in Appendix I.
B. Enforcement proceedings
- In
2001 all the applicants except for Mrs Gurova submitted the writs of
execution to the bailiffs. On various dates of the same year the
bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned
the writs to the respective courts, referring to the debtor's lack of
funds. In 2004 these applicants resubmitted the enforcement documents
for execution. The bailiffs returned the writs unenforced, with
reference to the lack of funds.
1. Particular details of the application by Mrs Sadchikova (case
no. 13570/06)
- On
16 June 2006 the Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh rejected
Mrs Sadchikova's complaint about the bailiffs' negligence.
- In
their observations the Government submitted, without further detail,
that at some point, apparently after 25 November 2005, the Main
Department of Pension Fund of the Levoberezhnyy District of Voronezh
had invited the applicant to receive the judgment debt, but she had
refused. They informed the Court that on 3 July 2007 the unspecified
documents regarding payment of the judgment debt had been sent to a
local post office, for delivery to the applicant. They furnished no
information or documents confirming that the applicant had received
the amount.
2. Particular details of the application by Mrs Gurova (case
no. 13576/06)
- According
to the Government, the writ of execution issued in respect the award
in favour of Mrs Gurova was on 14 June 2000 returned to the
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh, on account of full
execution of the award. All the documents concerning the enforcement
proceedings were subsequently archived and destroyed. The Government
submitted that, apparently, the judgment had been enforced in 2000,
but they were not in possession of any documents evidencing the
enforcement.
- In
2005 Mrs Gurova asked the district pension authority to execute the
judgment, but the authority rejected her claim on the ground that the
domestic courts' findings in her favour had been incorrect.
- On
11 July 2007 1,489.60 Russian Roubles (RUB) of the judgment debt were
transferred to her bank account. According to the Government, this
payment had been made due to humanitarian considerations and respect
for human rights.
3. Three remaining applications (nos. 746/05, 13574/06 and
13579/06)
-
The judgments in favour of the other applicants had been enforced on
the dates tabulated in Appendix I.
C. Interviews at the prosecutor's office of Mrs Sadchikova,
Mrs Gurova and Mrs Sedykh
- The
above applicants submitted in their observations, without further
detail, that at some point after communication of their cases by the
Court they had been summoned for interviews by the local prosecutor's
office. It followed from the summonses they received that they were
called in respect of their complaints to the Court. The summonses
contained a reference to Article 6 of the Federal Law on Prosecutor's
Office of the Russian Federation stipulating that the prosecutor's
instructions were binding, and the failure to comply with them might
result in administrative responsibility.
-
Mrs Gurova furnished a copy of a prosecutor's explanatory note
(«объяснение»)
concerning her interview. It transpires from the note that the
prosecutor asked the applicant questions about the judgment in her
favour, the state of the enforcement proceedings and the authorities'
refusals to execute the award. The applicant confirmed that she was
not willing to settle. Mrs Sadchikova and Mrs Sedykh did not furnish
any details in respect of the interviews.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Under
section 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July
1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment within two months. Under
section 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of
Finance must enforce a judgment within three months.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
- Given
that the five applications at hand concern similar facts and
complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention,
the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO.1 ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR
- The
applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No.1 thereto about non-enforcement of the final judgments
in their favour. Insofar as relevant, these
Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by
[a] ... tribunal...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government contested admissibility of the applications on various
grounds. The applicants maintained their claims.
1. Compliance with the six months rule
- The Government argued that the
applications by Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Gurova and Mrs Sedykh were
inadmissible, because they had been lodged more than six months after
the judgments in their favour had become final.
- The
Court reiterates that in cases of non-enforcement six months run from
the date of execution of the judgment (see Gorokhov
and Rusyayev v. Russia, no.
38305/02, § 27, 17 March 2005). In the cases at hand, on the
dates of their introduction the respective judgments either had not
been enforced, as in cases of Mrs Sadchikova and Mrs Gurova (cases
no. 13570/06 and 13576/06) or less than six months elapsed from
the date of their full enforcement, as in the case of Mrs Sedykh
(case no. 13574/06). The objection is accordingly dismissed.
2. Exhaustion of the domestic remedies
- The
Government claimed that all the five applications were inadmissible,
since the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, such as a
negligence complaint against the respondent authorities or bailiffs,
a claim for non-pecuniary damages, and adjustment for the cost of
living.
- The
Court finds that the applicants had no remedies satisfying the
requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. A complaint
about the authorities' negligence would have been ineffective, since
it would yield a declaratory judgment that would reiterate what was
in any event evident from the original judgment: the State was to
honour its debt. Such new judgment would not bring the applicants
closer to their desired goal, that is the actual payment of the
judicial award or, if appropriate, compensation for late payment (see
Jasiūnienė v.
Lithuania (dec.), no.
41510/98, 24 October 2000; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no.
43883/02, § 16, 24 February 2005). A claim for non-pecuniary
damages has not been shown to be sufficiently certain in practice so
as to offer the applicants reasonable prospects of success as
required by the Convention (see Wasserman v.
Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§
51–58, 10 April 2008). An adjustment for the cost of living was
equally inadequate because it did not compensate non-pecuniary
damage. It follows that the complaints cannot be rejected for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
3. Objection as regards the applicants' victim status and request
for the striking the application by Mrs and Ms Pisarevy out of the
list
- The
Government submitted that the Mrs Sedykh, Mrs Gurova, Mrs Pisareva
and Mr Pisarev had lost their status as victims, because the
judgments had been enforced fully, and because the applicants had
refused settlement offers, with an intention to obtain higher
compensation from the Court. They argued that Mrs Sadchikova can no
longer be regarded as a victim, since she had refused to accept the
payment of the judgment debt. They also asked to strike the
application by Mr Pisarev and Mrs Pisareva out of the Court's list of
cases, because the applicants had refused to settle.
- The
Court reiterates that the mere fact that the authorities comply with
the judgment after a substantial delay cannot be viewed as
automatically depriving the applicants of their victim status under
the Convention (see Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, §
16, 24 February 2005). As regards the case of Mrs Sadchikova, the
Court notes that the authorities' attempts to comply with the terms
of the judgment took place not earlier than in 2005. There is nothing
in her case to suggest that the authorities recognised a violation of
her rights and afforded her redress. Nor is there any evidence that
she had indeed refused to accept the payment. In such circumstances,
the mere attempt to enforce the judgment after a significant delay
cannot be regarded as depriving Mrs Sadchikova of her victim status.
In respect of the other cases the Court notes that, even assuming
that the agreements proposed by the local authorities contained an
implicit recognition of a breach of the applicants' Convention
rights, each of the applicants refused the terms of the proposed
settlement, for which reason such agreements did not give rise to any
binding undertakings on the part of the Government. Therefore, the
applicants retained their victim status (see Chebotarev v. Russia,
no. 23795/02, § 20, 22 June 2006).
- As
regards the request for striking out the application by Mr and
Mrs Pisarevy, the Court has earlier refused to strike out cases
where applicants refused settlement. The Court will do so in the case
at hand, too (see, with further references, Svitich v. Russia,
no. 39013/05, § 21, 31 July 2007).
4. Other inadmissibility grounds
- The
Court notes that the applicants' complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention and it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
- As
regards the application by Mrs Gurova (case no. 13576/06), the
Government submitted that the judgment of 22 February 2000 had been
enforced in 2000. They admitted that they were unable to prove the
enforcement, and confirmed that the award had been paid to her on 11
July 2007. In respect of all the five applications the Government
claimed that the authorities had taken all possible measures to
enforce the judgments, which proved unsuccessful due to the debtor's
lack of funds. On the other hand, the applicants protracted the
enforcement proceedings, because they did not submit the enforcement
documents to the competent domestic authorities, either in good time
or at all. Mrs Sadchikova (case no. 13570/06) on an unspecified date
refused to accept the payment of the judgment debt.
- The
applicants maintained their claims. They submitted that they had
obtained enforceable judgments against the State and could not be
required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have the
awards executed.
2. The Court's assessment
- The
Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement
of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v.
Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III).
- As
regards the application by Mrs Gurova (case no. 13576/06), the Court
notes the Government's submission that there had existed no proof
that the judgment in her favour had been enforced in 2000. The Court
accordingly finds, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
that 11 July 2007 should be considered as the date of
enforcement. Thus, the award in favour of Mrs Gurova had remained
without execution for more than 7 years and 4 months. As regards the
judgment in favour of Mrs Sadchikova (case no. 13570/06),
nothing suggests that the applicant had received the payment
allegedly made to her on 3 July 2007. The Court accordingly considers
that the judgment in her favour has not been enforced to date, and
the delay in execution has exceeded seven years and nine months. As
regards the remaining applications, the Court notes that the delay in
enforcement of the judgment in favour of Mrs Kazmina (case no.746/05)
had lasted for 5 years and 15 days, in favour of Mrs Sedykh (case no.
13574/06) for 5 years and 5 days and in favour of Mrs Pisareva and Mr
Pisarev (case no. 13579/06) for 4 years and 11 months and 4 years, 9
months and 30 days, respectively.
- The
Court notes the Government's argument that the delays in enforcement
for which the authorities were responsible should run from the date
when the applicants had submitted the enforcement papers to the
correct authority. However, the Court reiterates that where a
judgment is against the State, the State must take the initiative to
enforce it (see Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, § 21–23,
12 June 2008). As regards the argument advanced by the Government in
case no. 13570/06 that Mrs Sadchikova evaded receipt of the judgment
debt, the Court notes, first, that this allegation was not
substantiated by any evidence or any further details and, second, in
any event the authorities had not taken any initiative to execute the
award of 16 February 2001 until at least the end of 2005. Such a
delay is incompatible with the Convention requirements.
- In
view of the foregoing, the Court considers that delays in enforcement
of the judgments in the applicants' favour were unreasonable,
impaired the applicants' right to a court and
prevented them from receiving the money they had legitimately
expected to receive. The Court considers that there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 in the present five cases.
III. OBSERVANCE OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION
- In
their observations Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Sedykh and Mrs Gurova
complained, without further detail, that the prosecutor's office
summoned them for interviews in a manner incompatible with Article 34
of the Convention. They referred to the fact that the respective
summonses contained an indication that a failure to comply with the
prosecutor's order might have given rise to an administrative
sanction. Article 34, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“The Court may receive applications from any
person, ... claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the
High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or
the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to
hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.”
- The
Court recalls that the issue of whether or not contacts between the
authorities and an applicant amount to unacceptable practices from
the standpoint of Article 34 must be determined in the light of the
particular circumstances of the case. In the context of the
questioning of applicants about their applications under the
Convention by authorities exercising a domestic investigative
function, this will depend on whether the procedures adopted have
involved a form of illicit and unacceptable pressure which may be
regarded as hindering the exercise of the right of individual
application. “Pressure” includes not only direct coercion
but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to
dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.
(see, for example, Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25
September 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI, pp.
1899-1900, §§ 115-117; and Salman v. Turkey [GC],
no. 21986/93, § 130, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court further recalls
that a threat of criminal or disciplinary proceedings invoked, for
instance, against an applicant's lawyer concerning the contents of a
statement submitted to the Court has previously been found to
interfere with the applicant's right of petition (see McShane v.
the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May
2002)
- Turning
to the cases at hand, the Court observes, and it is not disputed by
the parties, that no criminal or administrative proceedings were
opened against the applicants. It appears from the applicants'
extremely brief submissions that their only concern was the form of
the summonses containing a reference to the binding force of the
prosecutor's instructions and a possibility of application of an
unspecified administrative sanction. No further details were
submitted by them in respect of the complaint. Furthermore, Mrs
Sadchikova and Mrs Sedykh submitted no information as regards the
respective interviews. It is therefore unclear whether such
interviews took place in respect of them, at all. Turning
to Mrs Gurova's interview, the Court observes that she was asked
about the domestic judgment in her favour and her unsuccessful
attempts to obtain its execution. There is nothing in the case
materials to suggest that the interview trespassed into verifying the
authenticity of her application and whether she wanted to continue it
(see, by contrast, Dulaş v. Turkey,
no. 25801/94, § 81, 30 January 2001, and Fedotova
v. Russia, no. 73225/01, § 49-51,
13 April 2006). The Court further finds no
evidence in the submissions that Mrs Gurova was forced to give
evidence to the prosecutor (see Tarariyeva v. Russia,
no. 4353/03, § 121, ECHR 2006 ... (extracts)).
In the absence of any additional factual information on the
circumstances of these particular cases, the Court is unable to
conclude that the interviews, or the manner in
which the applicants had been summoned for them, involved any
form of illicit and unacceptable pressure put on the applicants in
order to dissuade them from pursuing their applications to the Court.
The Court concludes that the Government have not breached their
obligations under Article 34.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
1. Pecuniary damage
(a) The parties' submissions
- Mrs
Kazmina claimed RUB 1,392.20 in respect of pecuniary damage. This
amount represented her estimate of the interest arising out of
the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 5
December 2000, calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate
of an unspecified “Bank”, apparently the Central Bank of
Russia. Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Sedykh, Mrs
Gurova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev claimed the interest arising
out of the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. They
suggested that the compensation should be calculated on the basis of
the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia on the date of
their application to the Court (12 % in respect of all the
applications concerned). Mrs Sedykh (application no. 13574/06)
specified that 29.65 euro (EUR), calculated this way, should be
awarded to her. The other applicants did not
specify the amounts they sought to obtain for pecuniary damage as a
result of adjustment of the judgment debts on the basis of the
refinancing rate mentioned above.
- The
Government contested the claim by Mrs Kazmina as not substantiated
with any evidence. They pointed out that she had not indicated to
which bank's rates she had been referring. They did not comment on
the claims by Mrs Sedykh. As regards the claims by Mrs Sadchikova,
Mrs Gurova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev, the Government submitted
that the Russian courts had been better placed to determine the
applicants' inflationary loss, and it had remained open to them to
apply there. They further objected to the method of calculation
suggested by Mrs Gurova arguing that the refinancing rate applicable
at the date of the domestic judgment's entry into force, not at the
date of the application to the Court, should be taken into account.
They did not make comments on the method of calculation proposed by
Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev.
(b) The Court
- As
regards the application by Mrs Sadchikova (case no. 13570/06), the
Court notes that the State's unfulfilled obligation to execute the
judgment of 16 February 2001, which has not been enforced to date, is
not in dispute in the present case (see paragraph 20 above). The
Court therefore considers that the Government should secure, by
appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 16 February
2001 in favour of Mrs G. Sadchikova.
- The
Court further recalls, in respect of all the applications, that the
adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be
paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its
value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova v.
Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005). It also
reiterates that applicants cannot be required to exhaust domestic
remedies to obtain compensation for pecuniary loss since this would
prolong the procedure before the Court in a manner incompatible with
the effective protection of human rights (see Papamichalopoulos
and Others v. Greece (Article 50), judgment of 31 October
1995, Series A no. 330 B, § 40, and Gridin v. Russia,
no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). In the cases at hand, the
Court discerns a causal link between the violation found and the
pecuniary loss sustained by the applicants. Making its estimate on
the basis of the information at its disposal, the Court awards them
the amounts as indicated in the relevant part of Appendix II under
this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and dismisses the
remainder of their claims for pecuniary damage.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
- Mrs
Kazmina (application no. 746/05) claimed EUR 5,000 in one part of her
observations and EUR 3,900 in another part of her observations as
compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Sedykh,
Mrs Gurova, Mrs Pisareva and Mr Pisarev (cases nos. 13570/06,
13574/06, 13576/06 and 13579/06) each claimed EUR 3,900 under this
head.
- The
Government submitted that no award should be made since there had
been no violation of the applicants' rights. In any event, they
considered the amounts claimed excessive and unreasonable.
- The
Court accepts that the applicants must have been distressed by the
delayed enforcement of the judgments. Making its assessment on an
equitable basis, and taking into account the delays in execution of
the respective judgments in the applicants' favour, the Court awards
them the amounts as indicated in the relevant part of Appendix II in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable,
and dismisses the remainder of their claims under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
Court reiterates that, according to the Court's case-law, an
applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only
in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and
necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum.
1. Claim by Mrs N. Kazmina (application no. 746/05)
- Mrs
Kazmina claimed RUB 431 of the expenses related to copying and
postage of the application to the Court. She submitted postal
receipts in support of her claim. The Government disagreed, claiming
that the applicant only substantiated her expenses in the amount of
RUB 231.
- Regard
being had to the information in its possession and the criteria cited
above, the Court allows the applicant's claim and awards Mrs Kazmina
EUR 12 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be
chargeable.
2. Claims by Mrs Sadchikova, Mrs Sedykh, Mrs Gurova and Mrs and Mr
Pisarevy (nos. 13570/06, 13574/06, 13576/06 and 13579/06)
- In
each of the above cases the applicants claimed EUR 44 in respect of
lawyer's fees and postal expenses. They
did not submit copies of the respective fee agreements to that
effect, but argued, with reference to the case of Timishev v.
Russia (no. 3) (no. 18465/05, § 36, 14 June
2007) that in each case the applicants and their representative spent
about one day preparing the materials for the Strasbourg proceedings,
and the amount claimed represented the average
value of a lawyer's working day.
- The
Government did not comment on the claims by Mrs Sedykh (case no.
13574/06). They contested the claims raised by the other applicants
as unsubstantiated.
- Regard
being had to the information in its possession, the Court finds it
appropriate to award EUR 44 for costs and expenses in respect of each
of the above four applications, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares in respect of all applications the
complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 concerning non-enforcement of judgments in the applicants'
favour admissible;
- Holds in respect of all applications that there
has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 in all cases on account of delayed enforcement of the
judgments in the applicants' favour;
- Holds, in respect of the applications nos.
13570/06, 13574/06 and 13576/06, that the respondent State had not
failed in its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) in respect of the application no. 13570/06, that the
respondent State, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, is to secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of
the judgment of 16 February 2001 by the Levoberezhnyy District Court
of Voronezh in favour of Mrs G. Sadchikova;
(b) in respect of all applications, that the respondent
State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 §
2 of the Convention, the following sums, to be converted into Russian
roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i) in respect of pecuniary damage:
EUR 25 (twenty five euros) to N. Kazmina;
EUR 35 (thirty five euros) to G. Sadchikova;
EUR 29 (twenty nine euros) to L. Sedykh;
EUR 54 (fifty four euros) to A. Gurova;
EUR 27(twenty seven euros) to A. Pisareva;
EUR 25 (twenty five euros) to D. Pisarev;
(ii) in respect of non-pecuniary damage:
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to N. Kazmina;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to G. Sadchikova;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to L. Sedykh;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to A. Gurova;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to A. Pisareva;
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to D. Pisarev;
(iii) in respect of costs and expenses:
EUR 12 (twelve euros) to N. Kazmina;
EUR 44 (forty four euros) to G. Sadchikova;
EUR 44 (forty four euros) to L. Sedykh;
EUR 44 (forty four euros) to A. Gurova;
EUR 44 (forty four euros) to A. Pisareva and D. Pisarev jointly;
(c) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall
be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal
lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period
plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 January 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX I.
|
Application
Number,
date of intro.
|
Name
of applicant,
year
of birth
|
Judgment
to be enforced
(date,
decision body)
|
Awarded
amount
(RUB,
if applicable)
|
Date
of enforcement of the award
(if
applicable)
|
|
746/05
9
December 2004
|
Kazmina
Nina Grigoriyevna
(1934)
|
5
December 2000,
the
Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh, final on 16 December
2000
|
1,035.80
|
27
December 2005
|
|
13570/06
12
March 2006
|
Sadchikova
Galina Vladimirovna
(1942)
|
16
February 2001, the Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh,
final on 26 February 2001
|
1,014.06
|
Not
enforced to date (see § 9 of the judgment for details)
|
|
13574/06
17 February 2006
|
Sedykh
Lidiya Ivanovna
(1942)
|
24
November 2000, the Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh,
final on 4 December 2000
|
1,206.20
|
8
December 2005
|
|
13576/06
3 March 2006
|
Gurova
Alla Leonidovna
(1941)
|
22
February 2000, the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh,
final on 6 March 2000
|
Recalculated
pension for 1998 (multiplier of 0.7 to be applied)
|
11
July 2007, RUB 1,489.60 transferred to the applicant's bank
account
|
|
13579/06
4
March 2006
|
Pisareva Anna Ivanovna
(1937)
|
24
January 2001, the Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh, final
on 5 February 2001
|
1,118.36
|
9
January 2006
|
|
|
Pisarev
Dmitriy Andreyevich
(1936)
|
16 February 2001, the
Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh, final on 27 February
2001
|
1,052.40
|
27
December 2005
|
APPENDIX II.
|
Application
number
|
Name
of the applicant
|
Amount
to be paid in respect of non-pecuniary damage (eur)
|
Amount
to be paid in respect of pecuniary damage (eur)
|
|
746/05
|
Kazmina
Nina Grigoriyevna
|
3,000
|
25
|
|
13570/06
|
Sadchikova
Galina Vladimirovna
|
3,000
|
35
|
|
13574/06
|
Sedykh
Lidiya Ivanovna
|
3,000
|
29
|
|
13576/06
|
Gurova
Alla Leonidovna
|
3,000
|
54
|
|
13579/06
|
Pisareva
Anna Ivanovna
|
3,000
|
27
|
|
|
Pisarev
Dmitriy Andreyevich
|
3,000
|
25
|
