In the case of Sivograk and Zenov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Ksenija Turković,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
14758/08) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Igor Georgiyevich Sivograk (“the
first applicant”) and Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Zenov (“the second applicant”),
on 31 January 2008.
The applicants were represented by Mr V.V.
Sharovarin, a lawyer practising in Bryansk. The Russian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On 9 January 2009 the application was
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
In accordance with the pilot judgment in Burdov
v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009), the applications were
adjourned pending their resolution at the domestic level.
The Government later informed the Court that they
saw no possibility of enforcing the judgments in the applicants’ favour. The
Court therefore decided to resume the examination of the present application.
THE FACTS
The applicants are Russian nationals, who were
born in 1969 and 1968, and live in Starodub, the Bryansk Region, and Saratov
respectively.
A. NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 1 NOVEMBER
2005 IN THE APPLICANT’S FAVOUR
By a judgment of 1 November 2005 the Zavodskoy District
Court, Grozny (“the District Court”) ordered the Ministry of the Interior of
the Chechen Republic to pay an allowance due to the applicants for
participation in the counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus. The
court awarded the first applicant 607,999 Russian roubles (RUB) for a period of
service from June 2002 to December 2004 and the second applicant RUB 367,333
for a period of service from June 2003 to December 2004.
The judgment became binding and enforceable on 11
November 2005. The applicants repeatedly attempted to secure the enforcement of
that judgment by contacting the debtor authority and other State authorities
responsible for payment of the judgment debt. They provided the authorities
with the necessary documents, including the writ of enforcement issued by the
domestic court. However, their attempts were not successful and the judgment
remained unenforced.
Following the authorities’ prolonged failure to
enforce the judgment, the applicants sued the Ministry of the Interior of the
Russian Federation on the basis of its vicarious liability (субсидиарная ответственность). On 29 September 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy District
Court, Moscow (“the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court”) granted the applicants’
claims and awarded RUB 847,999 in favour of Mr Sivograk and RUB 607,333 in
favour of Mr Zenov. Those amounts corresponded to the total sum owed to the
applicants under the judgments of 1 November 2005 and 10 May 2006 (see
paragraph 13 below).
On 3 August 2010 the judgment of
29 September 2009 was quashed, following an application by the Ministry of
the Interior for review on account of newly discovered circumstances.
By a new judgment of 9 November 2010, upheld on
appeal on 20 July 2011, the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court dismissed the
applicants’ claims. The court noted that the debtor was not in possession of
the writs of enforcement and thus could not enforce the judgment of 1 November
2005 in the applicant’s favour. Furthermore, the court referred to the applicants’
failure to prove that the principal debtor had refused or failed to pay the
judgment debt.
The judgment of 1 November 2005 in the applicants’
favour remains unenforced to the present date.
B. A SECOND JUDGMENT ALLEGEDLY DELIVERED ON 10
MAY 2006 IN THE APPLICANT’S FAVOUR
The applicants submitted a copy of a judgment of
10 May 2006 allegedly delivered by the District Court in favour of five
claimants, including the applicants. It transpires from the text of the
judgment that the court heard the oral submissions of the parties to the case at
a hearing and arrived at the following conclusions:
“...
The failure of the command of the United Group Alignment to
issue orders to make the payments in due time does not in itself prove that the
applicants did not take part in the counter-terrorist operation and are not
entitled to receive combat allowance.
The records of individual participation in the
counter-terrorist operation on the territory of the North-Caucasus region
reflect the dates of [the claimants’] participation which match the timeframe
indicated by the claimants.
The records submitted by the finance department of the Ministry
of the Interior’s regional office demonstrate that the claimants have indeed not
received the remuneration due to them for participation in combat and other
actions in defence of the public order ...
The reports drawn up by the head of the personnel department in
the Ministry of the Interior’s regional office following an internal inquiry
show that the claimants were included in the orders authorising the
counter-terrorist operation and are entitled to relevant payments.
In addition, the case file contains the minutes of meetings
held by the commission supervising the putting together of orders concerning the
involvement of personnel in the counter-terrorist operation which evidence that
the applicants indeed took part in the operations during the aforementioned period
and are entitled to extra reimbursement.
...
The court concludes that the claimants indeed took part in the
counter-terrorist operation. The respondent submitted to the court official
documents evidencing [this fact] and thus de facto accepted their
claims.
...
The amounts to be recovered are calculated by the court based
on the records provided by the respondent.
...
Having regard to the above and relying on Articles 194 and 198
of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court orders the Ministry of the Interior
of the Chechen Republic to pay the following amounts for de facto
participation in the counter-terrorist operation on the territory of the North
Caucasus in favour of:
...
Valeriy Nikolayevich Zenov RUB 240,000 for the period from 1
January to 31 December 2005, and also to credit the above period in [the
claimant’s] length of service record in the proportion of one month for three
months and in [the claimant’s] length of special service record in the
proportion of one month for three months;
Igor Georgiyevich Sivograk RUB 240,000 for the period from 1
January to 31 December 2005, and also to credit the above period in [the
claimant’s] length of service record in the proportion of one month for three
months and in [the claimant’s] length of special service record [in the
proportion of one month for three months].”
On 20 July 2007 the Chechen Republic Department
of the Federal Treasury returned the writs of enforcement related to the
judgment of 10 May 2006 issued by the District Court for failure to
indicate the creditor’s addresses and discrepancies between the operative part
of the judgment and the enforcement document.
By letter of 24 July 2008 the acting president
of the District Court, replying to the applicants’ request for correction of
the irregularities in the enforcement documents and the judgment, informed them
that the court had never delivered the judgment of 10 May 2006 or the related
writs of enforcement and that the stamps and signatures on the documents had
been falsified.
The Government submitted a copy of a decision to
refuse the institution of criminal proceedings dated 26 January 2009, which
read as follows:
“Senior police lieutenant I.A. Askhabov, an investigator at the
Zavodskoy police station’s investigative department, having examined the
material submitted by the prosecutor’s office for the Zavodskoy District of
Grozny and registered by ... the Zavodskoy police station ... on 17 December
2008, concerning the falsification by an unidentified person of a judgment of
the Zavodskoy District Court ordering the payment of an additional monetary
allowance for participation in the counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen
Republic, established [the following]:
The judgment by the Zavodskoy District Court of 10 May 2006 in
[the applicants’] favour and the writs of enforcement dated 20 May 2006 [by
which] the Ministry of the Interior for the Chechen Republic [was] ordered to
pay [the applicants] RUB 240,000 each, which had been submitted by [the
applicants] to the Chechen Republic Department of the Federal Treasury, are
falsified and were never delivered or issued by the Zavodskoy District Court.
The above is confirmed by the information contained in [a
letter] of the Zavodskoy District Court of 24 July 2008 ...
Accordingly, the actions of the unidentified person constitute the
corpus delicti described in Article 327.1 of the Criminal Code.
The above crime belongs to the category of small-scale crimes and,
considering that the judgment ... was falsified in May 2006, any prosecution would
be time-barred in accordance with Article 78.1 (a) of the Criminal Code.
Based on the above ... it is decided:
1. To refuse to open a criminal case on account of a
crime provided for in Article 327.1 of the Criminal Code [having taken
place] ... due to the expiration of the statutory limitation period for
criminal prosecution ...
...
5. To send a copy of this decision to [the
applicants], V.V. Sharovarin and the prosecutor for the Zavodskoy District of
Grozny.
This decision is amenable to appeal to the prosecutor for the
Zavodskoy District of Grozny or the Zavodskoy District Court in accordance with
Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
...”
On the same date a copy of the decision was sent
to the applicants.
On 29 September 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy
District Court considered the applicants’ claims against the Ministry of the
Interior brought on the basis of its vicarious liability and ordered it to pay RUB 847,999
to Mr Sivograk and RUB 607,333 to Mr Zenov. The amounts recovered corresponded
to the total sums owed to the applicants under the judgments of 1 November 2005
and 10 May 2006 (see paragraphs 7 and 13 above).
By letter of 17 May 2010 the president of the
District Court responded to an inquiry by the office of the Representative of
the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights as follows:
“In reply to your inquiry of 13 May 2010 [no. of the letter]
the Zavodskoy District Court [...] informs you that the judgments of
1 November 2005 and 1 June 2006 on the claims of V. N. Zenov, I.G. Sivograk
and [another person] in their favour against the Ministry of the Interior of
the Republic of Chechnya ordered the payment of RUB 367,333, 607,999 and
746,468 respectively for de facto participation in the counter-terrorist
operation on the territory of the North-Caucasus region (hereinafter “the
CTO”).
Pursuant to Articles 428 and 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure
writs of enforcement were issued to the creditors upon entry of the judgments
into force.
...
The court is not in possession of any information concerning
the enforcement of the judgment of 1 November 2005 in respect of V. N. Zenov
and I. G. Sivograk.
Since the date of the delivery of the judgment T. R. Khamidov,
V. N. Zenov and I.T. Sivograk have not lodged with the court any claims or
complaints of non-enforcement of the judgment; hence it is impossible to
provide you with any court decisions [in this respect].
As regards the judgment of 10 May 2006 which allegedly ordered
the payment of monetary allowances by the Ministry of the Interior of the
Republic of Chechnya to V.N. Zenov and I.G. Sivograk for de facto
participation in the CTO, the court has never delivered such a judgment, nor
have any claims to this effect been lodged with the court.”
Based on the information contained in the above
letter, the Ministry of the Interior challenged the judgment of 29 September
2009 before the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court on account of newly discovered
circumstances. As a result, on 3 August 2010 the judgment of 29 September 2009
was quashed (see paragraph 10 above). By a new judgment of 9 November 2010,
the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court rejected the applicants’ claims (see
paragraph 11 above). The court stated that, according to all available
evidence, the judgment of 10 May 2006 had never been delivered. That judgment
was upheld on appeal on 20 July 2011.
THE LAW
The applicants complained that the non-enforcement
of the judgments of 1 November 2005 and 10 May 2006 in their favour had
breached Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which
read in their relevant parts 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.”
I. NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 1 NOVEMBER 2005
A. The arguments of the parties
The Government submitted that the Federal
Treasury Department for the Chechen Republic had taken measures compelling the
debtor authority to pay the judgment debt. However, their repeated attempts to
secure enforcement of the judgment had not been successful. The Government
admitted that the reasons for the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment had
been beyond the applicants’ control and had mainly related to shortcomings in
the enforcement documents and financial difficulties. The Government further
submitted, however, that the authorities had been unable to enforce the
judgment after 2009, as the applicants had withdrawn the enforcement documents
at that point and had failed to resubmit them to the Federal Treasury
Department for the Chechen Republic.
The applicants maintained their complaint.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
The Court notes that the complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
25. 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). It
has been the Court’s consistent position that a person who has obtained a
judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement
proceedings (see Metaxas v. Greece,
no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004). In such cases, the defendant State
authority will have been duly notified of the judgment and is thus well
placed to take all necessary measures to comply with it or to transmit it to
another competent State authority responsible for execution. This is
particularly relevant in a situation where, in view of the complexities and
possible overlapping of the execution and enforcement processes, an applicant
may have reasonable doubts about which authority is responsible for the
execution or enforcement of the judgment (see Akashev v. Russia,
no. 30616/05, § 21, 12 June 2008, and Burdov (no. 2), cited above,
§ 68). Consequently, the Court has held that the burden of ensuring compliance
with a judgment against the State lies primarily with the State authorities,
starting from the date on which the judgment becomes binding and enforceable (Burdov
(no. 2), cited above, § 69).
At the same time, the Court has accepted that a
successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps in
order to recover the judgment debt (see Shvedov
v. Russia, no. 69306/01, § 32, 20 October 2005). Accordingly, it is
not unreasonable for the authorities to ask a creditor to produce additional
documents, such as bank details, to allow or speed up the execution of a
judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece,
no. 32141/04, § 24, 8 November 2007, and Burdov (no. 2), cited
above, § 69). The creditor’s uncooperative behaviour may be an obstacle
to timely enforcement of a judgment, thus alleviating the authorities’ responsibility
for delays (see Belayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 36020/02, 22 March
2011). The Court has found, for example, that the authorities should not have
been held responsible for the applicants’ unexplained failure to follow the
domestic enforcement procedure and, notably, for their deliberate and
persistent refusal to provide the writs of enforcement (see Gadzhikhanov and
Saukov v. Russia, nos. 10511/08 and 5866/09, §§ 27-31, 31 January 2012). It should be
recalled, however, that the requirement of the creditor’s cooperation must not
go beyond what is strictly necessary and, in any event, does not relieve the
authorities of their obligation under the Convention to take timely action of
their own motion, on the basis of the information available to them, with a
view to honouring the judgment against the State (see Akashev, cited
above, § 22, and Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 69).
Turning to the present case, the Court notes
that the applicants have repeatedly attempted to recover the judgment debt since
11 November 2005, when the judgment in their favour became binding and
enforceable. As the Government acknowledged, the prolonged non-enforcement of
the judgment between 2005 and 2009 was not due to the applicants’ behaviour,
being totally within the authorities’ control. Such a long delay in payment of
a judicial award is on its face incompatible with the Convention requirements as
they arise from the established case-law cited above, and the Court discerns no
specific reason to reach a different conclusion in the circumstances of the
present case.
Confronted with such inaction on the part of the
authorities for several years, the applicants cannot be blamed for their
decision to withdraw the execution documents from the Federal Treasury
Department for the Chechen Republic in order to bring a new lawsuit against the
Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation on the basis of its
vicarious liability. Even assuming that the failure to resubmit the writ of
enforcement to the Federal Treasury Department for the Chechen Republic at the
present stage may constitute a legal obstacle to the enforcement of the
judgment, the delays that should thus be attributed to the applicants appear insignificant
compared to those for which the authorities remain totally responsible. Contrary
to what the Government’s argument may suggest, the present situation should be
distinguished from the rare cases where the applicants’ uncooperative behaviour
was the central obstacle making it legally or practically impossible for the
authorities to comply with the domestic judgments in a timely manner (see Belayev,
and Gadzhikhanov and Saukov, cited above).
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes
that the authorities’ prolonged failure to ensure the enforcement of the
judgment of 5 November 2005 amounts to a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT ALLEGEDLY
DELIVERED ON 10 MAY 2006 IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR
A. The arguments of the parties
The Government submitted that the judgment of 10
May 2006 had been forged and that the applicants had submitted false
information to the Court, abusing their right of application. They requested
that the application be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3
(a) of the Convention.
The applicants retorted that the allegation of
falsification of the judgment of 10 May 2006 had not been supported by
sufficient evidence. They asserted that they had only become aware of the
decision to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings of 26 January 2009 as
a result of their correspondence with the Court and had not followed the course
of the investigation.
B. The Court’s assessment
. The
Court would highlight at the outset that according to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules
of Court applicants must keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant
to the application. It further reiterates that an application may be rejected
as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it
was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96,
§ 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18
January 2005; Řehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no.
67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no.
5667/02, 2 May 2006). Incomplete and therefore misleading information
may also amount to an abuse of the right of individual petition, especially if the
information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is
given for the failure to disclose that information (see Poznanski and Others
v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007, and Hadrabova and Others v. the Czech Republic
(dec.), nos. 42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007).
Having examined the circumstances of the present
case, the Court observes that on 24 July 2008 the acting president of the
Zavodskoy District Court informed the applicants in writing that the judgment
of 10 May 2006 and the related enforcement documents had been falsified. It
further observes that on 17 December 2008 the applicants on their own
initiative raised before the police a complaint of the alleged falsification of
the judgment of 10 May 2006. It follows from the above that, even assuming that
the applicants had believed that the judgment was genuine, they became aware of
the tainted character of that judgment shortly after lodging their application
with the Court. Whether they received the decision to refuse the institution of
criminal proceedings in respect of their complaint in a timely manner appears
to be immaterial, as the burden was upon the applicants in those circumstances
to enquire about the results of the investigation and submit them to the Court.
Furthermore, the Court considers that if the
applicants had indeed obtained the judgment of 10 May 2006 in a lawful manner,
they had ample opportunity to prove it by submitting to the Court such evidence
as copies of their statements of claim, the transcripts of any court hearings or
witness statements by their fellow claimants. However, the applicants chose not
to avail themselves of that course of action and did not attempt to explain
this omission, which further supports the Court’s doubts concerning the nature
of that judgment.
The Court finds the above information to be
sufficient to infer that the judgment of 10 May 2006 was falsified and that the
applicants were aware of this fact during the entire lifetime of their
application. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the
proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that the applicants’
conduct was inconsistent with the purpose and spirit of the right of individual
petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.
In view of the above, the Court finds it
appropriate to reject the applicants’ complaint as an abuse of the right of
individual application pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
III. 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
As regards pecuniary damage, the applicants
claimed 847,999 Russian roubles (RUB) for Mr Sivograk and RUB 607,333 for
Mr Zenov, corresponding to the total of the domestic awards made by the
judgment of 1 November 2005 and those allegedly made by the judgment of
10 May 2006. They also claimed interest on those amounts without providing
any calculation. Lastly, they claimed 10,000 Euros (EUR) each in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The Government submitted that no just
satisfaction should be awarded in respect of the alleged non-enforcement of the
judgment of 10 May 2006, which had been forged. At the same time, they did
not dispute the amount of compensation claimed by the applicants in respect of
pecuniary damage as far as the judicial awards made by the judgment of 1 November
2005 were concerned. The Government did not accept, however, that any interest
on those amounts should be awarded, since the applicants had failed to present
any calculation in that respect. Lastly, the Government considered that the
amounts claimed by the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage were
excessive and submitted that the Court should not award each applicant more
than EUR 3,200 under this head.
The Court acknowledges, like the Government,
that the applicants sustained pecuniary damage as a result of the violations of
the Convention arising from the State’s failure to pay them the judicial awards
made by the judgment of 1 November 2005. The Court further notes from the
Government’s submissions that the prospects for enforcement of that judgment
are somewhat compromised at the present stage. In accordance with its
established case-law, the most appropriate form of redress in respect of the
violations found would be to put the applicants as far as possible in the
position they would have been if the Convention requirements had not been
disregarded (see Piersack v. Belgium (Article 50), 26 October 1984,
§ 12, Series A no. 85). The Court therefore finds it appropriate to grant
the applicants the equivalent of the judicial awards made in their favour by
the judgment of 1 November 2005, namely EUR 14,015 to the first applicant and
EUR 8,468 to the second applicant. The Court finds at the same time that the
applicants’ claim for interest on those amounts was not supported by any detailed
calculations and decides to reject that claim. Lastly, the Court reiterates
that no compensation can be granted in respect of the alleged awards of 10 May
2006, since the applicants were found to have abused their right of individual
petition in relation to that complaint.
The Court also considers that the violations
found caused the applicants non-pecuniary damage which cannot be made good by
the mere finding of a violation. At the same time, the Court concurs with the
Government that the amount of EUR 10,000 claimed by each of the applicants is
excessive. While the damage sustained was inevitably heightened by the very
long delay in enforcement of the judgment of 1 November 2005 and the Government’s
failure to settle the case in accordance with the pilot judgment (see paragraphs
4 and 5 above), the Court’s assessment under Article 41 should also take
account of the fact that the other part of the application was dismissed as an
abuse of the right of individual petition. Having regard to all the information
in its possession and making its assessment on an equitable basis, Court awards
the applicants EUR 3,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
Each applicant also claimed EUR 500 for costs
and expenses without presenting any documents in support of the claim.
The Government considered that those claims
should be rejected as unsupported by relevant documentation showing that the
costs had actually been incurred.
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 are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the applicants’
failure to present any documents in support of their claim, the Court makes no
award in respect of costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate 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
1. Declares the application admissible with
regard to the applicants’ complaint of the State’s failure to enforce the
judgment of 1 November 2005 and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts:
(i) EUR 14,015 (fourteen thousand and fifteen
euros) to the first applicant in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 8,468 (eight thousand four hundred and sixty-eight
euros) to the second applicant in respect of pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on that amount, to each applicant
in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 June 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Isabelle
Berro Lefèvre
Deputy Registrar President
