[New search]
[Contents list]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF
SERGEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications
nos. 28309/03, 28318/03, 28379/03, 17147/04, 19131/04, 43601/05,
32383/06, 32485/06, 34874/06, 40405/06 and 45497/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March
2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sergeyev and Others v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Erik
Møse,
judges,
and
André Wampach,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 February 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in eleven applications (nos. 28309/03, 28318/03,
28379/03, 17147/04, 19131/04, 43601/05, 32383/06, 32485/06, 34874/06,
40405/06 and 45497/06) 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
twelve Russian nationals (“the applicants”). Their
details appear in the Appendix below.
- Six
applicants (Mr Sergeyev, Mr Matyushin, Mr Khatkevich, Mr Belchevskiy,
Mr Yermakov and Mr Glukhov) were represented before the Court by Mr
V. Gandzyuk, a lawyer practicing in Ryazan. Other applicants were not
represented by a lawyer. The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk,
former representatives of the Russian Federation at the Court, and by
Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation
at the Court.
- The
applicants complained of non-enforcement of binding and enforceable
judgments delivered between 2001 and 2003 and of their subsequent
quashing in supervisory-review proceedings.
- Mr
Khatkevich died on 21 August 2007. His widow, Ms Margarita
Khatkevich, expressed her intention to continue the proceedings
before the Court.
- On
the dates indicated in the Appendix below the President of the
First Section decided to give notice of the applications to the
Government. In accordance with Article 26 § 1 of the
Convention as amended by Protocol No. 14, the applications
were assigned to a Committee of three Judges. It was also decided
that the Committee would rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 1 of the
Convention).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- All
the applicants except Ms N. Krivtsova and Ms M. Barzakova
were at the material time members of the Russian military forces and
took part in peace-keeping operations in former Yugoslavia.
Ms N. Krivtsova’s and Ms M. Barzakova’s
late husbands were also members of the Russian military forces and
took part in the same operations.
- All
those servicemen sued their respective military units in courts for
payment of outstanding daily allowance allegedly due to them on
account of their military missions abroad.
- On
various dates the courts allowed the applicants’ claims and
awarded them monetary compensation. The judgements became binding and
enforceable but were not enforced by the authorities. The details of
the judgments appear in the Appendix below.
- On
the dates specified in the Appendix, the Presidium of the
Moscow Circuit Military Court quashed the judgments by way of
supervisory review, considering that the lower courts had erroneously
applied the domestic material law. As a result, the applicants’
claims were dismissed.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at
the material time is summed up in the Court’s judgments in the
cases of Ryabykh (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no.
52854/99, §§ 31-42, ECHR 2003 IX) and Sobelin and
Others (see Sobelin and Others v. Russia,
nos. 30672/03 et al., §§ 33-42, 3 May 2007).
- In
2001-2005 judgments delivered against the public authorities were
executed in accordance with a special procedure established, inter
alia, by the Government’s Decree No. 143 of 22
February 2001 and, subsequently, by Decree No. 666 of 9
September 2002, entrusting execution to the Ministry of Finance (see
further details in Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia,
nos. 2191/03 et al., §§ 33-39, 21 June
2007).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
- Given
that these eleven applications concern similar facts and complaints
and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to
consider them in a single judgment.
II. LOCUS STANDI AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS Nos.
28379/03, 32383/06 AND 32485/06
- The
Court notes that in the case of Khatkevich (no. 28379/03) the
applicant died on 21 August 2007 and that his widow expressed her
wish to continue the proceedings before the Court (see paragraph 4
above). In the cases of Krivtsova (no. 32383/06) and Bazarkova
(no. 32485/06) the widows lodged their applications before the Court
after the death of their husbands complaining of the non-enforcement
and quashing of the judgments delivered in their late husbands’
favour. An issue may thus arise as to whether the three widows have
standing to pursue the proceedings before the Court in the case of
Khatkevich and to bring such proceedings in the cases of
Krivtsova and Bazarkova.
- As regards the two latter cases, the Court notes that
both widows inherited their late husbands’ rights under the
binding and enforceable judgment in their favour. Mr Krivtsov died on
21 February 2005 and Mr Bazarkov on 19 September 2003. At that
time the judgment in their favour remained unexecuted for three years
and for one year and nine months respectively. Both widows
legitimately considered that the money due under the judgment would
be paid to them in their quality of heirs. In these circumstances,
the subsequent quashing of the judgment on supervisory review
personally affected the two applicants, frustrating their reliance on
that binding and enforceable judgment (compare Streltsov and other
“Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia,
nos. 8549/06 et al., § 40, 29 July 2010). The Court therefore
concludes that both widows may legitimately claim to be victims of
the alleged violation of the legal certainty requirement.
- The
situation is different in the case of Khatkevich, in so far as
the quashing of the judgment in the applicant’s
favour had occurred before he passed away. The crux of the grievance
under Article 6 was, in fact, frustration of the applicant’s
reliance on the binding judicial decision.
Given that quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act and
does not create a continuing situation, the
Court may have difficulties in finding that the applicant’s
relatives were also affected by the quashing. As a result, the
complaint under Article 6 in the context of the supervisory-review
proceedings, if raised separately, might not be automatically
considered transferable to the applicant’s relatives (see
Streltsov and other
“Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases,
cited above, § 40).
- On
the other hand, the Court notes that in the present case the
supervisory-review complaint is closely related to the
non-enforcement grievance under Article 6. It recalls that the
principles insisting that a final judicial decision must not be
called into question and should be enforced represent two aspects of
the same general concept, namely the “right to a court”
(see, for instance, Sobelin and Others, cited above, §
67). The Court has consistently recognised the standing of close
relatives of diseased applicants in respect of non-enforcement
complaints (see, among others, Shiryayeva v. Russia, no.
21417/04, § 9, 13 July 2006). Given that the supervisory-review
complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
are closely interrelated, the Court has also been prepared to accept
the relatives’ standing under both those provisions. In view of
the above, the Court does not consider it necessary to draw a
distinction between two aspects of the applicant’s complaint
for the purpose of determination of the standing issue. It therefore
finds that Ms Margarita Igorevna Khatkevich has standing to
pursue her late husband complaints under both Article 6 and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (see Streltsov and
other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases,
cited above, § 41).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 AND ARTICLE 1 OF
PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE FINAL JUDGMENTS
- The
applicants complained that the non-enforcement and subsequent
quashing of the binding judgments in supervisory review proceedings
had violated their right to a court under Article 6 of the Convention
and the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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. ...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that the applications were inadmissible. They
pointed out in the first place that some of the applicants had
initially complained only of non-enforcement of the judgments and
failed to invoke their quashing on supervisory review within the
six-month time-limit as required by Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention. They further argued in some cases that Article 6 of the
Convention was not applicable to the domestic litigations as they
concerned the military personnel and could therefore not be qualified
as “civil”. Finally, they submitted with regard to all
cases that the quashing of the judgments by the Presidium of the
Moscow Circuit Military Court was lawful, legitimate and compliant
with the principle of legal certainty: the supervisory review had
been meant to correct gross violations of domestic law and to ensure
its uniform and coherent application.
- The
applicants argued that their applications were admissible, referring
to the existence of the Court’s established case-law on the
issues involved. Some applicants stated that they were unaware of the
supervisory review proceedings and disputed the fact that they had
been properly notified thereof. They submitted that the situation
here at issue had already been examined by the Court in several
previous cases, which were decided in the applicants’ favour
(e.g. Kozeyev v. Russia, no. 934/03, 31 July 2007).
- The
Court notes with the Government that some of the applicants initially
complained only of non-enforcement of the judgments without referring
to the quashing of those judgments on supervisory review. While the
Government submitted that the applicants had been duly notified of
the supervisory review proceedings, the case-files contain no
evidence that the applicants had actually received the information.
The applicants on their part provided some elements indicating the
contrary. In these circumstances the Court cannot find it established
that the applicants concerned knew about the supervisory review
proceedings and were able to complain thereof within six-months of
the quashing. The Court also bears in mind that the principles
insisting that a final judicial decision must not be called into
question and should be enforced represent two aspects of the same
general concept, namely the right to a court (see Sobelin and
Others, cited above, § 67, and Kulkov and Others v.
Russia, nos. 25114/03 et al., § 35, 8 January
2009) and that the applicants had complained at the outset of the
violation of that right by the authorities. Finally, the parties have
used the opportunity to submit their observations on both the
non-enforcement and quashing of the judgments. The Government’s
objection must therefore be dismissed.
- As
regards the applicability of Article 6 to the applicants’
cases, the Court reiterates that civil servants can only be excluded
from the protection embodied in Article 6 if the State in its
national law expressly excluded access to a court for the category of
staff in question and if this exclusion was justified on objective
grounds in the State’s interest (see Vilho Eskelinen and
Others v. Finland, [GC], no. 63235/00, §62, ECHR 2007 II).
The Court considers that these conditions were not satisfied in the
present cases, as all applicants had access to courts in accordance
with the domestic law. Accordingly, the Government’s objection
should be dismissed in line with the Court’s decisions in
numerous similar cases (see Dovguchits v. Russia,
no. 2999/03, §§ 19-24, 7 June 2007, and
Kulkov and Others, cited above, § 19).
- The
Court further notes that the applications are not manifestly
ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that legal certainty, which is one of the
fundamental aspects of the rule of law, presupposes respect for the
principle of res judicata, that is the principle of the
finality of judgments. A departure from that principle is justified
only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and
compelling character, such as correction of fundamental defects or
miscarriage of justice (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC],
no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999 VII, and Ryabykh
v. Russia, cited above, §§ 51-52).
- The
Court further recalls that it has already found numerous violations
of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and
enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review under the Code of
Civil Procedure as in force at the material time. Some of these
violations were found in virtually identical circumstances involving
retired servicemen (see, among many others, Kondrashov and Others
v. Russia, nos. 2068/03 et al., §§ 21-24, 8
January 2009, and Kulkov and Others, cited above, §§ 25 33).
In those cases the Court found that the quashing of final judgments
in the applicants’ favour was not justified by circumstances of
compelling and exceptional character. The Court finds no reason to
come to a different conclusion in the present case. All arguments
submitted by the Government were addressed in detail and dismissed in
the aforementioned previous cases.
- The
Court accordingly concludes that the quashing of the binding and
enforceable judgments in the applicants’ cases amounts to a
breach of the principle of legal certainty in violation of Article 6
of the Convention. The quashing of the judgments frustrated the
applicants’ reliance on the binding judicial decisions and
deprived them of an opportunity to receive the judicial awards they
had legitimately expected to receive (see Dovguchits,
cited above, § 35). There has accordingly been also a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENTS
- The applicants also complained of a violation of
Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
on account of non enforcement of the judgments which were
quashed on supervisory review. The Court notes that in five cases
(Sergeyev, Matyushin, Khatkevich, Belchevskiy,
Yermakov and Glukhov) the judgments were quashed less
than one year after they became binding and enforceable. Given its
above finding under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of the quashing of the judgments on supervisory review, the
Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the
issue of their subsequent non-enforcement by the authorities in those
cases. A separate issue as to non-enforcement of judgments arises,
however, in respect of six other applicants (Mr Tatarinov, Ms
Krivtsova, Ms Bazarkova, Mr Shchetinin, Mr Kolosvetov and Mr
Pronin), as the judgments in their favour had remained unenforced for
several years before their quashing on supervisory review (see
Kazakevich and 9 other “Army Pensioners” cases
v. Russia, nos. 14290/03 et al., §§ 32-33, 14
January 2010).
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the complaints about non-enforcement of the domestic
judgments in respect of the six above-mentioned applicants are not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention. It also notes that they are not inadmissible on any
other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government argued that the applicants had failed to address the
relevant domestic authorities to ensure proper and timely enforcement
of the judgments prior to their quashing. They concluded that the
responsibility for prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments could
not be attributed to the authorities.
- The
applicants maintained their complaints.
- 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). The reasonableness of such delay is to be
determined having regard in particular to the complexity of the
enforcement proceedings, the applicant’s own behaviour and that
of the competent authorities, the amount and the nature of court
award (see Raylyan
v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31,
15 February 2007).
- The Court notes that the
binding and enforceable judgment of the Kaluga Garnison
Military Court of 19 December 2001 remained unenforced for three
years and eleven months in respect of five applicants (Mr Tatarinov,
Ms Krivtsova, Ms Bazarkova, Mr Shchetinin and Mr Kolosvetov).
The binding and enforceable judgment delivered by the same court on
27 February 2002 in favour of another applicant, Mr Pronin,
remained unenforced for more than four years.
- In
the light of the Court’s established case-law, such long delays
appear at the outset incompatible with the requirement to enforce the
judgments within a reasonable time (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2),
no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009, and Kondrashov and Others, cited
above). The Government provided no argument allowing the Court to
come to a different conclusion in the present case.
- As
regards the Government’s argument about the applicants’
behaviour, the Court reiterates that the primary responsibility to
enforce a judgment delivered by a domestic court against the State
lies with the domestic authorities. 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 v. Russia,
no. 30616/05, § 22, 12 June 2008, and Burdov (no. 2),
cited above, § 69). The Government did not demonstrate that
the applicants failed to cooperate with a view to enforcement of the
judgments or obstructed the process in any manner (compare Belayev
v. Russia (dec.), no. 36020/02, 22 March 2011).
- In
view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the authorities’
prolonged failure to enforce the binding and enforceable judgments in
respect of the six applicants amounted to violations of Article 6 of
the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF THE LACK OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES IN RESPECT OF
NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENTS
- One
of the applicants, Mr Pronin, also complained of the lack of domestic
remedies in respect of the lengthy non-enforcement of the domestic
judgment of 27 February 2002 delivered by the Kaluga Garnison
Military Court in his favour.
- The
Court refers at the outset to its finding that the applicant was a
victim of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour prior
to the quashing of that judgment by way of supervisory review (see
paragraph 32 above). It also refers to its frequent previous
findings that there was no effective domestic remedy in the Russian
legal system in respect of such violations of the Convention during
the relevant period (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above,
§ 117).
- The
Court notes at the same time that a new domestic remedy was
introduced by the federal laws № 68-ФЗ
and № 69-ФЗ in the
wake of the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment and that it was
available to all applicants, whose applications were brought before
the Court by that time. Given those special circumstances, the Court
decided in a number of cases involving violations on account of
lengthy non-enforcement of judgments that it was not necessary to
proceed to a separate examination of the applicants’ complains
under Article 13 (see Kravchenko and Others (military housing)
v. Russia, nos. 11609/05 et al., §§ 40-45,
16 September 2010, and Vasilchenko v. Russia, no.
34784/02, §§ 54-59, 23 September 2010).
The Court finds it appropriate to follow the same approach in the
present case.
- While
the Court regards the applicant’s complaint under Article 13
as admissible, it concludes for the reasons set out above that there
is no need for its separate examination in the present case.
VI. 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
- The
applicants claimed in respect of pecuniary damage the sums awarded to
them by the judgments delivered in their favour by the Ryazan and
Kaluga Garnison Military Courts and compensation for inflation
losses (see details in the table appended). Six applicants
(Mr Sergeyev, Mr Matyushin, Mr Khatkevich, Mr Belchevskiy,
Mr Yermakov and Mr Glukhov) twice adjusted their claims for
inflation losses in order to take account of the depreciation of the
Russian currency since July 2008, when they first submitted their
just satisfaction claims. All applicants also claimed various amounts
ranging between 5,000 and 10,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered that nothing should be awarded in respect of
pecuniary damage as the domestic courts awards were later found to be
unlawful and quashed. They also considered the claim for
non pecuniary damage to be excessive and unreasonable.
- The Court recalls that 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, p. 16, § 12,
Series A no. 85; and, mutatis mutandis, Gençel
v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October
2003). The Court considers that this principle should apply in the
present cases (see Dovguchits cited above, § 48).
- The
applicants were prevented from receiving the amounts they had
legitimately expected to receive under the binding and enforceable
judgments delivered by domestic courts in their favour. Accordingly,
the Court awards the applicants the amounts granted by the judgments
of the Ryazan and Kaluga Garnison Military Courts (see details
in the table appended).
- The
Court further accepts the applicants’ argument relating to the
loss of value of these awards since the judgments in their favour
became final. It finds that the sums claimed by the applicants in
that respect appear substantiated, reasonable and consistent with the
Court’s awards in previous similar cases (see Kondrashov and
Others, and Kulkov and Others, cited above). The Court
therefore decides to grant the applicants claims in full (see details
in the table appended). At the same time the Court does not find it
appropriate to grant the six applicants’ additional claims for
exhaustive compensation of inflation losses due to the depreciation
of the Russian currency since their first claims were submitted (see
paragraph 40 above). The Court reiterates that its role, as an
international judicial authority, is not to compensate applicants’
losses minutely and exhaustively (Ryabov and 151 other
“Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 4563/07
et al., § 21, 17 December 2009). The Court furthermore
notes that, in accordance with its established practice, it will make
its awards in Euros, using the rate applicable at the date of the
applicants’ claims and thus limiting the depreciation effect
referred to by the applicants.
- The
Court finally finds that the applicants have suffered non pecuniary
damage as a result of the violations found which cannot be
compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Having regard to the
circumstances of the cases and making its assessment on an equitable
basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court
awards to each applicant a sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- Seven
applicants claimed various amounts for costs and expenses (see
details in the table appended). Six applicants (Mr Sergeyev,
Mr Matyushin, Mr Khatkevich, Mr Belchevskiy, Mr Yermakov and
Mr Glukhov) provided the lawyer’s bills and postal
receipts in support of their claims. Mr Pronin claimed 6,000 Russian
Roubles (RUB) but provided a postal receipt only for RUB 1,852.00.
- The
Government considered that the claims were substantiated in certain
parts, while challenging the validity of the lawyer’s bills in
respect of the six applicants mentioned above.
- 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. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
notes that the sums claimed are in line with the awards made in
previous similar cases. It is also satisfied that they are
substantiated and evidenced by the documents submitted by the
applicants, except in Mr Pronin’s case. The Court therefore
decides to award the latter an equivalent of RUB 1,852.00 which was
evidenced by the relevant postal receipt and to grant the other six
applicants’ claims in full.
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 the applications admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all
cases on account of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants’
favour by way of supervisory review;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on
account of non-enforcement of the judgments prior to their quashing
in respect of six applicants, namely Mr Tatarinov, Ms Krivtsova,
Ms Bazarkova, Mr Shchetinin, Mr Kolosvetov and Mr Pronin;
- Holds that it is not necessary to consider
separately the remainder of the applicants’ complaints relating
to non-enforcement of the judgments and the lack of effective
domestic remedies in that respect;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants within three months 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
22,480 (twenty-two thousand four hundred and eighty euros) to S.
Sergeyev;
EUR
19,545 (nineteen thousand five hundred and forty-five euros) to V.
Matyushin;
EUR
24,154 (twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-four euros) to
Margarita Khatkevich;
EUR
17,217 (seventeen thousand two hundred and seventeen euros) to V.
Belchevskiy;
EUR
19,353 (nineteen thousand three hundred and fifty-three euros) to N.
Yermakov;
EUR
7,555 (seven thousand five hundred and fifty-five euros) to
V. Glukhov;
EUR
24,151 (twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-one euros) to S.
Tatarinov;
EUR
24,151 (twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-one euros) to N.
Krivtsova;
EUR
24,573 (twenty-four thousand five hundred and seventy-three euros) to
M. Bazarkova;
EUR
23,939 (twenty-three thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine euros) to
Y. Shchetinin;
EUR
24,151 (twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-one euros) to S.
Kolosvetov;
EUR
23,937 (twenty-three thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven euros) to
Y. Pronin;
(ii) EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros) to each of the above persons in respect
of non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable on these
amounts;
(iii) in
respect of costs and expenses:
EUR
280 (two hundred and eighty euros) to S. Sergeyev;
EUR
280 (two hundred and eighty euros) to V. Matyushin;
EUR
292 (two hundred and ninety-two euros) to Margarita Khatkevich;
EUR
280 (two hundred and eighty euros) to V. Belchevskiy;
EUR
276 (two hundred and seventy-six euros) to N. Yermakov;
EUR
276 (two hundred and seventy-six euros) to V. Glukhov
EUR
53 (fifty-three euros) to Y. Pronin;
plus
any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts;
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2012, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André
Wampach Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application.
no. (date of introduction and communication)
|
Applicant
(year
of birth)
|
Domestic
Judgment
|
court
award
|
Judgment
on supervisory review
|
Just
satisfaction claims
|
28309/03
(lodged on 29/07/2003,
communicated on 21/01/2008)
|
Sergeyev Sergey Borisovich
(1964)
|
Ryazan Garnison
Military Court, 11/12/2001, final on 24/12/2001
|
376,848.63 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 6/11/2002
|
Pecuniary damage:
376,848.63 RUB (capital sum)
and 454,404.07 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
7,000 EUR
Costs:
10,396.30 RUB
|
28318/03
(lodged on 29/07/2003,
communicated on 5/12/2007
|
Matyushin Vladimir Fedorovich
(1966)
|
Ryazan Garnison
Military Court, 11/12/2001, final on 24/12/2001
|
336,024.11 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 6/11/2002
|
Pecuniary damage:
336,024.11 RUB (capital sum)
and 384,344.37 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
7,000 EUR
Costs:
10,371.60 RUB
|
28379/03
(lodged on 31/07/2003,
communicated on 22/04/2008)
|
Khatkevich Aleksandr
Stepanovich (1967)
|
Ryazan Garnison
Military Court, 11/12/2001, final on 24/12/2001
|
383,343.44 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 6/11/2002
|
Pecuniary damage:
383,343.44 RUB (capital sum)
and 476,419.23 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
7,000 EUR
Costs:
10,405.60 RUB
|
17147/04
(lodged on 30/03/2004,
communicated on 17/01/2008)
|
Belchevskiy Vladimir
Vladimirovich(1962)
|
Ryazan Garnison
Military Court, 25/07/2003, final on 22/08/2003
|
352,302.80 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 19/11/2003
|
Pecuniary damage:
352,302.80 RUB (capital sum)
and 282,053.62 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
7,000 EUR
Costs:
10,315.60 RUB
|
19131/04
(lodged on 7/05/2004,
communicated on 15/03/2007
|
Yermakov Nikolay Mikhaylovich
(1980)
Glukhov Vladimir Ivanovich
(1956)
|
Ryazan Garnison
Military Court, 15/01/2003, final on 3/03/2003
|
443,856.68 RUB to Mr Yermakov
171,062.57 RUB to Mr Glukhov
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 19/11/2003
|
Pecuniary damage:
443,856.68 RUB (capital sum)
and 256,337.52 RUB (inflation loss) to Mr Yermakov
171,062.57 RUB (capital sum)
and 102,261.20 RUB (inflation loss) to Mr Glukhov
Non-pecuniary damage:
7,000 EUR to each applicant
Costs:
10,000 RUB to each applicant
|
Application.
no. (date
of introduction and communication)
|
Applicant
(year
of birth)
|
Domestic
Judgment
|
court
award
|
Judgment
on supervisory review
|
Just
satisfaction claims
|
43601/05
(lodged on 24/11/2005,
communicated on 23/09/2009)
|
Tatarinov Sergey Leonidovich
(1968)
|
Kaluga Garnison
Military Court, 19/12/2001, final on 3/01/2002
|
457,749.42 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 21/12/2005
|
Pecuniary damage:
457,749.42 RUB (capital sum)
and 519,331.67 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
5,000 EUR
|
32383/06
(lodged on 16/06/2006,
communicated on 23/09/2009)
|
Krivtsova Nina Nikolayevna
(1963)
|
Kaluga Garnison
Military Court, 19/12/2001, final on 3/01/2002
|
457,749.42 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 21/12/2005
|
Pecuniary damage:
457,749.42 RUB (capital sum)
and 519,331.67 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
5,000 EUR
|
32485/06
(lodged on 17/06/2006,
communicated on 23/09/2009)
|
Barzakova Margarita Yuryevna
(1961)
|
Kaluga Garnison
Military Court, 19/12/2001, final on 3/01/2002
|
468,254.85 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 21/12/2005
|
Pecuniary damage:
468,254.85 RUB (capital sum)
and 525,912.75 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
5,000 EUR
|
34874/06
(lodged on 14/06/2006,
communicated on 23/09/2009)
|
Shchetinin Yuriy
Konstantinovich (1958)
|
Kaluga Garnison
Military Court, 19/12/2001, final on 3/01/2002
|
453,925.92 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 21/12/2005
|
Pecuniary damage:
453,925.92 RUB (capital sum)
and 514,567.72 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
5,000 EUR
|
40405/06
(lodged on 20/06/2006,
communicated on 23/09/2009)
|
Kolosvetov Sergey
Vladimirovich (1967)
|
Kaluga Garnison
Military Court, 19/12/2001, final on 3/01/2002
|
457,749.42 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 21/12/2005
|
Pecuniary damage:
457,749.42 RUB (capital sum)
and 519,331.67 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
5,000 EUR
|
45497/06
(lodged on 2/10/2006,
communicated on 19/01/2007)
|
Pronin Yevgeniy Viktorovich
(1979)
|
Kaluga Garnison
Military Court, 27/02/2002, final on 11/03/2002
|
468,883.14 RUB
|
Presidium of the Moscow
Circuit Military Court, 5/04/2006
|
Pecuniary damage:
468,883.14 RUB (capital sum)
and 368,635.92 RUB (inflation loss)
Non-pecuniary damage:
10,000 EUR
Costs:
6,000 RUB
|