Право
Навигация

 

Реклама




 

 

Ресурсы в тему

 

Реклама

Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси

 

СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости

 

Рейтинг@Mail.ru


Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 23.09.2004 ДЕЛО ЕМАНАКОВА (YEMANAKOVA) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ [АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад


                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
                             FIRST SECTION
                                   
                     CASE OF YEMANAKOVA v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 60408/00)
                                   
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 23.IX.2004)
   
       In the case of Yemanakova v. Russia,
   --------------------------------
       <*>  This  judgment will become final in the circumstances  set
   out  in  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention. It may  be  subject  to
   editorial revision.
   
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mr P. Lorenzen,
       Mr G. Bonello,
       Mrs {N. Vajic} <**>,
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mr V. Zagrebelsky, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
   --------------------------------
       <**>  Здесь  и  далее  по  тексту слова на  национальном  языке
   набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Having deliberated in private on 2 September 2004,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
   date:
   
                               PROCEDURE
   
       1. The case originated in an application (no. 60408/00) 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  a  Ukrainian  national,   Yulia
   Aleksandrovna Yemanakova ("the applicant"), on 7 July 2000.
       2.   The  applicant,  who  had  been  granted  legal  aid,  was
   represented  by Ms O. Panchenko, a lawyer practising in  Berdyansk,
   Ukraine.   The   Russian   Government   ("the   Government")   were
   represented  by Mr. P.A. Laptev, the Representative of the  Russian
   Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  The applicant alleged that the proceedings in a civil  case
   to  which  she was a party were unreasonably long, in violation  of
   Article  6 з 1 of the Convention. She also submitted that  she  had
   no  effective remedies against the alleged violation, in breach  of
   Article 13 of the Convention.
       4.  The application was allocated to the Second Section of  the
   Court  (Rule  52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within  that  Section,
   the  Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з  1  of  the
   Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
       5.  On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its
   Sections  (Rule  25  з  1). This case was  assigned  to  the  newly
   composed First Section (Rule 52 з 1)
       6.  By  a  decision of 6 November 2003 the Court  declared  the
   application admissible.
       7.  The applicant and the Government each filed observations on
   the merits (Rule 59 з 1).
   
                               THE FACTS
                                   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
                                   
       8.  The  applicant  was born in 1919 and  lives  in  Berdyansk,
   Ukraine.
       9. The facts of the case are partially disputed by the parties.
   They may be summarised as follows.
   
           1. The initial set of proceedings in 1990 - 1992
                                   
       10.  The applicant's father was subjected to repression in 1929
   -  1930  as  a rich peasant ("kulak"). In 1930 the family property,
   including  a  two-storey  house  in  Sorochinsk,  Orenburg  Region,
   Russia,  was  confiscated.  In  1989  the  applicant's  father  was
   rehabilitated  post  mortem. The family  house  remains  intact  in
   Sorochinsk,  where it is used by the Sorochinsk Veterinary  College
   to  house  its employees. At some point during the proceedings  the
   families  who  lived in the house were permitted to  acquire  their
   flats.
       11.  The  applicant lives in Berdyansk, Ukraine, and the  train
   journey to Sorochinsk takes about two and a half days.
       12.  In  1990  the applicant and her sister, Mrs Mikhaylishina,
   initiated  proceedings to have their property right  to  the  house
   recognised.  On 26 October 1990 the Sorochinsk Town Court  rejected
   their  request  and  advised  them to  seek  compensation  for  the
   property  from  the  Orenburg  Regional  financial  department.  It
   appears   that   the   department   refused   their   request   for
   compensation.
       13.  In  January  1992  the applicant's  sister  died  and  the
   applicant remained the sole party to the proceedings.
   
                     2. Proceedings in 1992 - 2002
                                   
       14.  At  some  point in March 1992 the applicant submitted  new
   claims  to  the  Leninskiy  District  Court  of  Orenburg.  On   24
   September  1992  the  Leninskiy District Court  rejected  both  her
   complaint  about the decision of the Regional financial  department
   and  her  civil  claim  to have her property  right  to  the  house
   confirmed.  On 6 May 1993 the Orenburg Regional Court  quashed  the
   decision  of  24  September  1992 and  remitted  the  case  to  the
   District  Court. On 15 September 1993 the Leninskiy District  Court
   ordered  the  transfer  of the case to the  Sorochinsk  Town  Court
   which  had  territorial  jurisdiction  for  the  dispute  over  the
   building.
       15.  On  20  January  1995  the Head  of  the  Sorochinsk  Town
   administration  issued an order, requesting the Veterinary  College
   to  pay  the  applicant  the maximum compensation  allowed  by  the
   national  legislation,  which would  later  be  reimbursed  to  the
   College by the regional budget. The order was never complied  with.
   On  10 April 1995 the Sorochinsk Town Court ordered the closure  of
   the  civil case as the applicant had been awarded the compensation.
   On  25 September 1995 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court,
   acting by way of supervisory review, quashed the order of 10  April
   1995 and returned the case to the Town Court.
       16.  On 27 December 1995 the Sorochinsk Town Court rejected the
   applicant's  claim  against the Town administration  as  having  no
   basis in the national legislation and because she had already  been
   awarded  the  compensation. On 9 April 1996 the  Orenburg  Regional
   Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
       17.  On  24 July 1996 the Sorochinsk Town Court confirmed  that
   the  applicant's  family had been the owners of  the  property  and
   that   the   confiscation  had  taken  place,  but   rejected   the
   applicant's  claim to have the house returned. On  27  August  1996
   the  Orenburg Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the
   case.
       18.  On  13  February  1997  the Sorochinsk  Town  Court  again
   confirmed the family's previous ownership of the property  and  the
   fact  of  confiscation, but rejected the applicant's claim to  have
   the  house  returned. On 24 April 1997 the Orenburg Regional  Court
   quashed  this  judgment. The applicant was then informed  that  the
   Orenburg  Regional  Court would consider  her  case  as  the  first
   instance court.
       19. On 28 April 1998 the Civil College of the Orenburg Regional
   Court   rejected  the  applicant's  claim  for  compensation  filed
   against  the  Regional financial department and refused  to  return
   the  house in natura. It ordered the Sorochinsk Town administration
   to  pay  the applicant the maximum compensation for the confiscated
   property  in  the amount of RUR 8,349 (100 "units" of  the  minimum
   monthly  wage), plus travel expenses and legal fees in  the  amount
   of  RUR  3,540. The applicant submits that she was served with  the
   decision on 6 May 1998.
       20.   On   7  May  1998  the  applicant  received  RUR   3,540,
   representing   travel   fees  and  legal   costs,   at   the   Town
   administration.
       21. On 14 May 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with
   the  Orenburg  Regional Court, which was to be  forwarded  together
   with  the case file to the Supreme Court. The applicant then  wrote
   to  the  Orenburg Regional Court to inquire about the  progress  of
   the  case  on  21  August 1998 and 24 March 1999, but  received  no
   reply.  She  also  wrote directly to the Supreme Court  on  several
   occasions, including on 21 August and 26 November 1998, 6  May,  21
   June,  2  August,  18  August and 16 December  1999.  She  received
   standard  replies  from the Supreme Court on 5  November  1998,  19
   July  1999  and 19 January 2000, stating that her appeal could  not
   be  considered as no case file had been attached. On at  least  one
   occasion,  in May 1999, the applicant copied the decisions  of  the
   courts  and  her  appeal and forwarded the copies  to  the  Supreme
   Court  herself. Her letters to other bodies, including the Ministry
   of   Justice,   the  High  Qualification  Board  of   Judges,   the
   President's  administration, the Constitutional Court, prosecutors'
   offices of various levels were either not answered or forwarded  to
   the  Orenburg  Regional Court. The applicant submits that  she  was
   not aware of any procedural orders issued by the Regional Court  in
   respect of her appeal.
       22.  According to the Government's submissions filed after  the
   communication  of  the  complaint,  the  Orenburg  Regional   Court
   pronounced  its  judgment on 28 April 1998 in short  form  (without
   reasoning),  and  then on 29 April 1998 in full. The  decision  was
   served  on  the applicant on 6 May 1998. She thus missed  the  ten-
   days   time-limit  for  filing  a  cassation  appeal,   which   was
   eventually  lodged  on 15 May and arrived at the Orenburg  Regional
   Court  on  25  May 1998. As a result, on 1 June 1998  the  Regional
   Court   issued  a  procedural  order  adjourning  her  appeal   and
   requesting  the  applicant to submit reasons for  the  delay.  This
   decision  was  forwarded to the applicant by a  letter  of  3  June
   1998.
       23. On 21 June 1998 the Orenburg Regional Court again adjourned
   the  appeal and requested reasons for the delay from the applicant.
   A  letter,  dated  by  mistake  21  July  1998,  was  sent  to  the
   applicant. The applicant failed to respond.
       24.  The  Government  also submit that the court  decision  was
   executed  in  full in April 2000, when the sum of  RUR  8,349  (one
   hundred  minimum monthly wages) was transferred to  a  new  account
   opened  in  the  applicant's  name  in  the  Sorochinsk  branch  of
   Sberbank.  The applicant was informed accordingly by a letter.  The
   applicant  had already received the RUR 3,539 to cover  her  travel
   expenses.
       25.  In February 2004, upon the Court's request, the Government
   submitted  copies of documents supporting their submissions.  These
   included,  notably,  the Orenburg Regional Court's  decision  of  1
   June  1998,  a  letter  from  the same court  dated  21  July  1998
   informing  the  applicant about the adjournment and documents  from
   the  Sorochinsk  Town Administration concerning  execution  of  the
   judgment in April 2000.
       26.  The  applicant claims that she did not receive the letters
   of  3 June and 21 June (July) 1998. With respect to the award,  the
   applicant submits that she only learned of the transfer to  a  bank
   account  opened  in  her  name  in  2002,  after  receipt  of   the
   Government's memorandum.
   
                      3. New proceedings in 2002
                                   
       27. The complaint was communicated to the Russian Government in
   September 2001.
       28.  On  21 January 2002 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional
   Court,  acting  upon  the  Regional  Prosecutor's  application  for
   supervisory  review,  quashed and remitted for  procedural  reasons
   the  decision of the Sorochinsk Town Court of 26 October  1990.  On
   30 January 2002 the applicant was informed of this.
       29.  On  12  February 2002 the Sorochinsk Town Court issued  an
   order  by  which  the applicant and her sister were  instructed  to
   update  their claim of 1990 and to submit the applicant's  sister's
   birth  certificate  before 15 March 2002. On 13 February  2002  the
   order  was  forwarded  to  the applicant.  On  26  April  2002  the
   applicant replied to the Sorochinsk Town Court that her sister  had
   died  in 1992 and forwarded a copy of her death certificate. On  16
   May  2002  the  judge of the Town Court confirmed  receipt  of  her
   letter  and  again  requested  her to update  the  claim  initially
   submitted in August 1990 and to clarify if she wanted the  case  to
   be  reviewed  in her absence. It appears that a court  hearing  was
   scheduled for 22 August 2002. The applicant responded in July  2002
   that  she was not interested in a new review of the case, since  it
   had  lost  its  meaning. Her new claims against the defendants  had
   been  submitted  in 1992 to the Sorochinsk Town  Court,  and  these
   proceedings were the issue of her complaint.
       30. On 18 September 2002 the Orenburg Regional Court issued  an
   information  note,  stating  that the hearing  in  the  applicant's
   claim  against the Sorochinsk Town administration was adjourned  to
   27  September  2002, due to the non-appearance of the claimant.  On
   14  October  2002  the applicant requested the court  to  terminate
   these proceedings.
   
                       II. Relevant domestic law
                                   
       31.  Section  283 of the Civil Procedural Code  then  in  force
   provided  that  cassation appeals are submitted through  the  court
   which  acted  as  the court of first instance.  Submission  of  the
   appeal  directly  to  the  cassation instance  cannot  prevent  its
   consideration.
       32.  Section 284 (1) set a one month time-limit for  review  of
   cassation appeals by the Supreme Court.
   
                                THE LAW
                                   
        I. Alleged violation of Article 6 з 1 of the Convention
   
       33.  The  applicant  complained under Article  6  з  1  of  the
   Convention  that  the length of proceedings  in  her  case  was  in
   violation of the "reasonable time" requirement. Article 6  з  1  of
   the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides:
       "In  the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
   everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable  time  by
   [a] ... tribunal..."
       34.  The  Government  submitted that the applicant's  cassation
   appeal  was adjourned on 1 June 1998 due to her failure  to  comply
   with  the time-limit. The applicant was informed of this by letters
   of  3  and  21  June  1998. Whether she received  the  decision  in
   question  was,  in  the Government's opinion,  irrelevant  for  the
   calculation  of  the  length  of  the  proceedings.  Moreover,  the
   decision  of  28 April 1998 was executed, partly in  May  1998  and
   finally  in  April  2000,  when the award was  transferred  to  the
   applicant's bank account.
       35.   The  applicant  submitted  that  before  receipt  of  the
   Government's  memorandum in 2002 she was not aware of the  decision
   of  the  Orenburg  Regional  Court  to  adjourn  and  to  stay  her
   cassation  appeal.  She stressed that in 1998 - 2002  no  authority
   informed  her  of this decision either. She further submitted  that
   the  execution of the decision of 28 April 1998 in respect of  part
   of  the award had never been communicated to her, and she had  only
   learned  of  it  from  the  Government's memorandum  in  2002.  The
   documents   proving  the  adjournment  and  execution  were   first
   presented  by  the  Government  in  February  2004.  The  applicant
   considered  that  this  period should be included  in  the  overall
   length of proceedings.
   
               A. Period to be taken into consideration
                                   
       36. The Convention entered into force in respect of Russia on 5
   May  1998.  The  Court  is  not  competent  to  examine  complaints
   relating  to the events that occurred prior to that date.  However,
   in  cases  where  it  can,  by  reason of  its  competence  ratione
   temporis,  only examine part of the proceedings, it may  take  into
   account, in order to assess their length, the stage reached in  the
   proceedings  at  the  beginning of the period  under  consideration
   (see,  among other authorities, Wojnowicz v. Poland, no.  33082/96,
   21 September 2000, з 46).
       37. The proceedings in question started in March 1992, when the
   applicant applied to the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg.  The
   date  of termination of the proceedings is disputed by the parties.
   The  question  is  not, however, whether the proceedings  at  issue
   took  place,  but  whether and when the applicant was  notified  of
   them.
       38.  The  Court recalls its case-law in relation to calculation
   of  the six-month period, according to which the object and purpose
   of  Article 35 з 1 of the Convention are best served by counting as
   running  from the date of service of the written document in  cases
   where  the applicant is entitled, pursuant to domestic law,  to  be
   served  with  a  written  copy  of  the  final  domestic  decision,
   irrespective  of  whether  that judgment was  previously  delivered
   orally  (see  the  Worm  v. Austria judgment  of  29  August  1997,
   Reports  of  Judgments  and  Decisions  1997-V,  p.  1547,  з   33;
   Drosopoulos v. Greece (dec.), no. 40442/98, 7 December 2000).
       39.  The  Court is of the opinion that its case-law as set  out
   above  applies by analogy. If these principles are applicable where
   a  party to the proceedings, being generally aware of the nature of
   the  decision,  can still be allowed to obtain a  written  copy  of
   that  decision  before the prescription period starts  to  run,  it
   should  be  even  more  so in cases where there  is  no  reason  to
   believe  that  the party has been at all aware of such proceedings.
   The  Court  notes, in particular, that the applicant  continued  to
   address  the Orenburg Regional Court, the Supreme Court  and  other
   authorities  with  requests concerning her cassation  complaint  in
   June  1998 - 2000. However, apart from copies of letters of  1  and
   27  June (July) 1998, submitted by the Government in February 2004,
   and  which  the applicant claims she had never received,  no  other
   evidence  has  been  submitted  which  would  allow  the  Court  to
   conclude   that  the  applicant  was  indeed  notified   of   these
   proceedings.  From the nature of the applicant's  requests  to  the
   Orenburg  Regional  Court, the Supreme Court and other  authorities
   it  should have been clear that the applicant was not aware of  the
   decision  to  adjourn  the cassation appeal. It  does  not  appear,
   however,  that  after 21 June 1998 any steps were taken  to  inform
   the applicant properly.
       40. Taking into account the above considerations as well as the
   particular  circumstances  of  the  present  case  -  namely,   the
   substantial distance between Orenburg and the applicant's place  of
   residence  in  Ukraine, the overall length of proceedings  by  that
   date  as  well  as  the  applicant's  age  -  the  Court  finds  it
   established  that the applicant was not properly  informed  of  the
   decision  of the Orenburg Regional Court of 1 June 1998 to  adjourn
   her  cassation  appeal  at  least until  February  2002,  when  she
   received a copy of the Government's memorandum.
       41.  Accordingly, the period under consideration started  on  5
   May  1998,  when the Convention entered into force  in  respect  of
   Russia.  At  that  date, the proceedings had  already  lasted  from
   March  1992,  with  an interval from 10 April  until  25  September
   1995,  when no proceedings were pending. The proceedings  ended  in
   February  2002,  when the applicant was informed of their  outcome.
   The  Court is thus required to consider a length of three years and
   ten  months,  which itself followed some six years  of  proceedings
   before 5 May 1998.
   
            B. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings
                                   
       42.  According  to the Court's case-law, the reasonableness  of
   the  length  of proceedings must be assessed in the  light  of  the
   particular  circumstances  of the case and  having  regard  to  the
   criteria  laid  down by the Court, in particular the complexity  of
   the  case  and the conduct of the applicant and of the  authorities
   dealing   with   the  case  (see,  among  many  other  authorities,
   Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, з 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
       43.  As to the complexity of the case, the Court observes  that
   it  involved some complexity, originating in the events of 1930. At
   the  same  time  the Court notes the modest size  of  the  disputed
   property, the limited number of documents in the case-file and  the
   absence  of  any witnesses to be heard. In view of the  above,  the
   Court  cannot  conclude that the nature of  the  legal  or  factual
   issues  examined  would warrant the opinion that the  case  was  of
   such complexity as to justify the length of the proceedings.
       44.  The  Court  observes that almost the  whole  period  under
   consideration  was covered by the failure to notify  the  applicant
   of  the  adjournment of her cassation appeal after 1 June 1998,  at
   least  until  February  2002. During  this  period,  there  was  no
   activity on the part of the judicial authorities whatever.
       45.  Having  regard  to the above, as well as  the  applicant's
   personal  circumstances and what was at stake for  her,  the  Court
   considers  that the proceedings in the present case were not  dealt
   with  within the "reasonable time" referred to in Article  6  з  1.
   There  has  accordingly been a violation of Article 6 з  1  of  the
   Convention.
   
         II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
                                   
       46.  The  applicant also complained that she had  no  effective
   remedy  against the delays in the procedure. The Court has examined
   this complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
       "Everyone  whose  rights and freedoms as  set  forth  in  [the]
   Convention  are  violated shall have an effective remedy  before  a
   national  authority  notwithstanding that the  violation  has  been
   committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
       47.  The applicant submitted that she had no effective remedies
   against  the  delays  in  the proceedings. She  stressed  that  her
   numerous   requests   to   various  judicial   and   administrative
   authorities  concerning the lack of information on  her  case  have
   been left without substantive answers.
       48.  The  Government  did not address the  issue  of  effective
   remedies in their submissions.
       49.  The  Court  reiterates  that  Article  13  guarantees   an
   effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged  breach
   of  the  requirement under Article 6 з 1 to hear a  case  within  a
   reasonable  time  (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96,  з  156,
   ECHR  2000-XI). It notes that the Government did not  indicate  any
   remedy   that  could  have  expedited  the  determination  of   the
   applicant's case or provided her with adequate redress  for  delays
   that  had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99,
   29 January 2004, з 64).
       50.  Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present  case
   there  has  been  a  violation of Article 13 of the  Convention  on
   account  of  the  lack of a remedy under domestic law  whereby  the
   applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding her right to  have
   her case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article  6
   з 1 of the Convention.
   
           III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
   
       51.  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
                                   
       52.  The  applicant  claimed that as a result  of  the  lengthy
   proceedings  she was deprived of a judicial decision in  a  dispute
   concerning   her   father's   house.   The   applicant    requested
   compensation for pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 25,540.  She
   also  claimed EUR 100,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary  damage
   for  the  moral suffering caused to her through the  absence  of  a
   final judicial decision.
       53.  The Government considered these claims to be excessive and
   unreasonable.
       54.  The  Court notes that the decision of April  1998  in  the
   applicant's  favour  was  executed  and  the  sum  awarded  by  the
   national  court  was  transferred  to  an  account  opened  in  the
   applicant's  name. It therefore rejects the applicant's  claim  for
   pecuniary  damage. On the other hand, the Court  accepts  that  the
   applicant  suffered  distress, anxiety and frustration  exacerbated
   by   the  unreasonable  length  of  the  proceedings.  Making   its
   assessment  on  an  equitable basis, it awards  the  applicant  EUR
   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
   
                         B. Costs and expenses
                                   
       55.  In  addition  to  the expenses covered  by  the  legal-aid
   scheme,  the  applicant claimed a total of UAH  260  for  fees  and
   costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court.
       56. The Government made no specific comment in this regard.
       57. The Court notes that it has granted the applicant legal aid
   under  the  Court's  legal-aid scheme for  the  submission  of  her
   observations and additional comments and secretarial expenses.  The
   applicant   submitted   no  justification  for   additional   legal
   expenses. Accordingly, the Court is not required to make  an  award
   under this head.
   
                          C. Default interest
   
       58.  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
                                   
       1.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з  1  of
   the Convention;
       2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of  the
   Convention;
       3. Holds
       (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,  within
   three  months  from  the date on which the judgment  becomes  final
   according  to  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention,  EUR  1,000  (one
   thousand  euros)  in  respect  of  non-pecuniary  damage,   to   be
   converted  into  Ukrainian hryvnas at the rate  applicable  at  the
   date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
       (b)  that  from the expiry of the above-mentioned three  months
   until  settlement  simple interest shall be payable  on  the  above
   amount  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 applicant's claim  for  just
   satisfaction.
   
       Done  in English, and notified in writing on 23 September 2004,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
                                                                      
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                             President
                                                                      
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN
                                                             Registrar
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости


Реклама

Новости сайта Тюрьма


Hosted by uCoz