FIRST SECTION

CASE OF SIZINTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 38585/04, 2795/05, 18590/05, 24012/07 and 55283/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 April 2010

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of ,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Nina Vajić,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Elisabeth Steiner,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Giorgio Malinverni,
	George Nicolaou, judges,
and SørenNielsenSection Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in five applications (nos. 38585/04, 2795/05, 18590/05, 24012/07 and 55283/07) 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 five Russian nationals. The applicants' names and the dates of their applications to the Court appear in the appended table.
2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
3.  On various dates the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
4.  The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application no. 38585/04, but the Court rejected this objection.
THE FACTS
I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5.  The applicants live in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the appended table.
6.  In 1990, since cars were not available in free trade, the applicants chose to obtain State special-purpose promissory notes which would entitle them to Russian-made cars. Mrs Valentina Plotnikova should have received a car in 1992 and the other applicants in 1993-1995. The applicants paid the car's full value but never received the cars.
 7.  In 1998 Mrs V. Plotnikova and in 2002 Mrs Gladkova and I. Plotnikova received partial compensation of a car's monetary value in accordance with the State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt (see paragraphs 20-22 below).
8.  All applicants brought court actions against the authorities, seeking to recover the full monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of Russian-made cars.
9.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts found, in respect of each applicant, with reference to the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995 as amended on 2 June 2000 (see paragraph 19 below) that the State could not be absolved from an obligation to compensate them the full value of the cars. In particular, in the case of Mrs Sizintseva the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) held as follows:
“In accordance with the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1 June 1995 the State commodity bonds, including the special-purpose settlement orders, were to be recognised as the State internal debt. [...]
The State has not complied with its obligation to provide [the applicant] with a car as specified in a special-purpose settlement order.
Article 55 of the Constitution [...] stipulates that in the Russian Federation no laws shall be adopted cancelling or derogating human rights and freedoms.
Therefore, the Federal law of 2 June 2000 amending the [State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995] cannot be regarded as well-founded and lawful insofar as it provides for the payment of the compensation in the amount equalling to a part of the car's value specified in the special-purpose settlement order.
These [amendments] do not comply with the constitutional principles [cited above]”
The court accordingly refused to take account of the amendments of 2 June 2000 and chose to apply the price scale for the cars to be purchased under the settlement orders as in force on the date of delivery of the judgment. Similarly, in the case of Mr Titov the Mirninskiy Town Court held on 16 October 2001 that the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 “constituted an interference with the citizen's rights to receive a car” and “contradicted to Article 55 of the Constitution”. When determining the claim by Mrs Gladkova, the first instance court reached a similar conclusion and ruled that the amendments in question were adopted “in violation of [...] the Constitution, the Civil Code and the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995”. In the case of Irina Plotnikova the Neryungri Town Court hold that the ex parte change of the conditions of redemption by the Government was to the detriment of the applicant's interests and therefore was unlawful.
10.  The domestic courts accordingly awarded the applicants compensation in the amounts specified below payable by the State authorities, these sums representing the full monetary value of the cars on the date of the delivery of the judgments. In cases of Mrs Gladkova, Valentina Plotnikova and Irina Plotnikova the domestic courts deducted from the full value of the car the amount of the compensation these applicants had received in 1998-2002. On the dates specified in the Appendix the judgments became final.
11.  The awards remained unenforced.
12.  On the dates cited in the appended table the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, upon an application from the Ministry of Finance and by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the final judgments in the applicants' favour, re-examined the cases, reduced the amount of the compensation to be paid in case of Mrs Valentina Plotnikova to 28,009 Russian roubles (RUB) and dismissed in full the actions of the remaining applicants. In each case the Presidium found that the lower courts had misapplied the applicable domestic law. In particular, in every case except for the case of Valentina Plotnikova, the Presidium found that the lower courts had neglected to take into account the provisions of the amended State Commodity Bonds' Act and the Government's Resolution no. 1006. In the case of Mrs Sizintseva the Presidium formulated the conclusion as regards the quashing as follows:
“The [appeal instance] had not taken into account the provisions of [the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 2 June 2000], in force at the material time. A decision by the [appeal instance] based on incorrect application of the material law shall be quashed”
13.  Similar conclusion was reached by the supervisory instance in the other cases.
14.   Mrs Gladkova submitted that she had not been timeously notified of the session of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) and therefore could not attend it.
15.  According to the Government, RUB 28,009 awarded to Mrs Valentina Plotnikova by the supervisory instance judgment of 26 November 2006 (see Appendix below), has not been paid to her to date.
II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. The Constitution and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
16.  According to Article 15 § 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitution has the supreme juridical force, direct action and shall be used on the whole territory of the Russian Federation. Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation shall not contradict the Constitution.
17.  In accordance with Article 125 § 4 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reviews constitutionality of the law applied or due to be applied in a specific case in accordance with procedures established by federal law, upon requests of the courts.
18.   By the Ruling no. 19-П of 17 June 1998 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation held that it had exclusive competence to decide whether federal or regional laws violated the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Ordinary courts were not entitled to rule on the constitutionality of federal laws. In case of doubt as to whether a law complied with the Constitution, they should direct an inquiry to the Constitutional Court.
B. The State Commodity Bonds Act
19.  On 2 June 2000, section 3 of the State Commodity Bonds Act (federal law no. 86-FZ of 1 June 1995) providing that the special-purpose settlement orders were to be recognised as the State internal debt was amended to read, in the relevant parts, as follows:
“To set, in the [State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt of the Russian Federation], the following sequence and terms of redemption of State commodity bonds, depending on the type of the bond:
- [...] in respect of bearers of special-purpose settlement orders that gave the right to purchase passenger cars in 1991 and 1992 – payment of monetary compensation equal to the value of the car described in the order, as determined in co-ordination with car manufacturers at the moment of redemption. [...]
- in respect of bearers of special-purpose settlement orders that gave the right to purchase passenger cars in 1993-1995 – payment of monetary compensation equal to a part of the value of the car described in the order, as determined on account of the percentage of the part of the full value of car paid by the owner by 1 January 1992 (in accordance with the price scales in force until 1 January 1992), as well as the price of the cars determined in co-ordination with car manufacturers at the moment of redemption”
20. For the summary of the other relevant domestic law provisions see Grishchenko v. Russia, (dec.), no.75907/01, 8 July 2004.
THE LAW
I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
21.  Given that the five applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to consider them in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF SUPERVISORY REVIEW
22.  The applicants complained, notably, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the supervisory review of the judgments. Mrs Gladkova complained under these provisions that she was not notified of the supervisory review hearing and could not be present at the examination of her case. These Articles, insofar as relevant, provide 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...”
A. The parties' submissions
23.  As regards the case of Mrs Sizintseva, the Government argued that she had not raised a legal certainty issue in her application to the Court, but only challenged the fairness of the domestic proceedings. Thus, even having a right to investigate proprio motu whether the facts at consideration disclosed other violations of the Convention than those stated in the application, the Court had raised the legal certainty issue outside the six months time-limit established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
24.  The Government further submitted, in respect of all cases, that the supervisory review had not breached the principle of legal certainty: it had been preceded by an ordinary appeal, only one supervisory-review instance had been engaged, the request for the quashing had been lodged within six months, it had been initiated by a party to the proceedings and it had been meant to correct a misapplication of material law.
25.  They further argued that the supervisory review had aimed at remedying a fundamental defect of the proceedings before the lower courts. They stressed that the lower courts were not competent to rule on compliance of the provisions of the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Instead, they should have introduced a request for review of the constitutionality of the Federal Law in question with the Constitutional Court and suspend the proceedings pending delivery of the relevant ruling. However, they failed to make such request, and no suspension of the proceedings took place. Therefore, the examination of the applicants' cases before the lower courts was tarnished by a fundamental defect, namely abuse of power by the courts and jurisdictional error. In these circumstances, quashing was the only available way to rectify the fundamental defect and to restore legal certainty in the present cases.
26.  They further argued that the applicants' rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had not been prejudiced: Mrs Gladkova, V. Plotnikova and I. Plotnikova had received compensation for the cars before the litigation, while the other applicants had failed to apply for redemption of the promissory notes.
27.  The applicants maintained their claims.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
28.  As regards the Court's competence to examine Mrs Sizintseva's case and as concerns compliance with the six months rule, the Court reiterates that it has jurisdiction to review in the light of the entirety of the Convention's requirements the circumstances complained of by an applicant and, notably, is free to attribute to the facts of the case, as found to be established on the evidence before it, a characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant or, if need be, to view the facts in a different manner (see Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, § 44, and Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia (dec.), nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, 3 October 2002). The Court further notes that the application form was submitted by Mrs Sizintseva on 7 October 2004, that is within six months from the date of the quashing of the judgment in her favour. The application set out the relevant facts concerning the supervisory review proceedings and made a general claim in relation to Article 6 of the Convention. The Court therefore finds that it may examine whether the proceedings in question disclose a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, C.J.M.E., J.C.D. AND W.A.C.S. v. the Netherlands, nos. 5100/71 et al, Commission decision of 29 May 1973, and O'Reilly v. Ireland, no. 21624/93, Commission decision of 31 August 1994) and dismisses the objection.
29.  The Court further notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2.  Merits
(a) Article 6 of the Convention
i. Supervisory review procedure: legal certainty
30.  The Court reiterates that the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judicial decision which has become final and binding may render the litigant's right to a court illusory and infringe the principle of legal certainty (see, among many other authorities, Brumărescu v. Romania[GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, 1999‑VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 56-58, 24 July 2003). Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007, and Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 25-34, 31 July 2008).
31.  At the outset the Court notes that in the Government's view the annulment of the judgments on supervisory review was required by the need to rectify a fundamental defect in the initial domestic proceedings. The Court reiterates its constant approach that a jurisdictional error, a serious breach of court procedure or abuses of power may, in principle, be regarded as a fundamental defect and therefore justify the quashing (see Luchkina v. Russia, no. 3548/04, § 21, 10 April 2008). However, nothing in the respective rulings of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic in the cases at hand enables the Court to conclude that the initial judgments were indeed quashed because these courts had ruled on the constitutionality of the federal law in excess of their jurisdiction. In none of the judgments was the alleged jurisdictional error or abuse of competence or any other procedural defect cited as a ground for the annulment of the lower courts' findings. On the contrary, it clearly follows from the wording of the supervisory-instance rulings that the sole ground for the quashing was the misinterpretation and incorrect application of the provisions of the said Federal Law by the courts. Furthermore, the respondent authority did not claim before the supervisory-review that the previous proceedings had been tarnished by a fundamental defect, such as, in particular, a jurisdictional error, serious breaches of court procedure or abuses of power (see Luchkina, cited above). Such argument was only advanced in the Government's observations. In the absence of any reference to the ground for quashing cited by the Government in the texts of the supervisory-instance rulings, the Court is unable to conclude that the quashing was caused, and even less justified by the substantive jurisdictional error by the lower courts referred to by the Government. It therefore rejects the Government's argument.
32.  The Court further reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party's disagreement with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 30, 7 June 2007; and Kot, cited above, § 29). The Government did not put forward any arguments which would enable the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present five cases. There has been, accordingly, a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
ii. Supervisory review procedure: procedural issues
33.  With regard to the complaint about the procedural defects of the hearing before the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) raised by Mrs Gladkova, the Court finds that, having concluded that there had been an infringement of the applicant's “right to a court” by the very use of the supervisory review procedure, it is not necessary to consider whether the procedural guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention were available in those proceedings (cf. Volkova v. Russia, no. 48758/99, § 39, 5 April 2005).
(b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
34.  The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment constitutes the beneficiary's “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
35.  The Court has found in many cases that the quashing of enforceable judgments frustrated the applicants' reliance on the binding judicial decision and deprived them of an opportunity to receive the money they had legitimately expected to receive (see, among others, Ivanova v. Russia, no. 11697/05, § 23, 24 April 2008, Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 27101/04, § 32, 3 April 2008). In these circumstances, even assuming that the interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court considers that the quashing of the enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour by way of supervisory review placed an excessive burden on them and was incompatible with Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that Article in the present five cases.
III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ENFORCEMENT
36.  The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both cited above.
37.  The Government alleged that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under domestic law. They notably referred to Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowing to complain about the authorities' negligence and to Chapter 59 of the Civil Code opening a way to claim non-pecuniary damage. In the Government's view the latter provision had proven its effectiveness in practice, as shown by several examples of domestic case-law. The Government further argued, in respect of several applicants, that they had failed to submit the enforcement documents to the relevant authorities and in good time, and therefore delayed execution of the awards. In some cases they claimed that the judgments in the applicants' favour had not been enforced because of the supervisory-review proceedings which had eventually resulted in the quashing of the respective awards. As regards the application by Mrs Sizintseva, they argued that the enforcement of the judgment in her favour did not exceed ten months and was compatible with the Convention.
38.  The applicants maintained their claims. They argued that they had not significantly protracted the execution of the judgments and that substantial delays in enforcement had been attributable to the authorities.
 A. 
39.   The Court observes 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 Boris Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 30671/03, §§ 41-42, 15 February 2007; and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, no. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 67-68, 3 May 2007). The Court further observes that the judgment in the applicant's favour was quashed shortly after having become binding and enforceable. In these circumstances, it considers that Mrs Sizintseva's non-enforcement complaint is closely linked to the supervisory review issue and should be declared admissible as well. However, having regard to its findings above concerning violation of the applicant's rights on account of the quashing of the judgments in their favour, the Court does not consider it necessary, in the circumstances of the case, to examine her complaint concerning the non‑enforcement of the respective judgment separately (see Sobelin and Others, cited above).
B. The remaining cases (nos. 2795/05, 18590/05, 24012/07 and 55283/07)
1. Admissibility
40.  As regards exhaustion, the Court has recently assessed the effectiveness of the remedies referred to by the Government and found that the suggested remedies were ineffective (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 103 and 106-116, 15 January 2009, and Moroko v. Russia, no. 20937/07, §§ 25-30, 12 June 2008). The Government's objection must therefore be dismissed.
41.  The Court further notes that the applicants' non-enforcement complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
42.  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 Court further reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a manner which has been found to have been incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's “right to a court” cannot be accepted as justification for the failure to enforce that judgment (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006). In the present cases the judgments in the applicants' favour were enforceable until at least the respective dates of quashing and it was incumbent on the State to abide by their terms (see Velskaya v. Russia, no. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006). However, in each case the State avoided paying the judgment debt for more than one year.
43.  As regards the objection concerning the applicants' failure to submit the enforcement papers in good time, the Court reiterates that where a judgment is against the State, the State must take the initiative to enforce it (see Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, §§ 21–23, 12 June 2008). The complexity of the domestic enforcement procedure cannot relieve the State of its obligation to enforce a binding judicial decision within a reasonable time (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 70).
44.  There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the four cases at hand.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
45.  Mrs Gladkova (application no. 18590/05) complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the court proceedings in her case.
46.  The Court has examined this complaint as submitted by the applicant. Having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application by Mrs Gladkova must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
47.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
 A.  Damage
1. Pecuniary damage
(a) The parties' submissions
48.  Mrs Sizintseva claimed 127,825 Russian roubles (RUB) of the judgment debt and RUB 79,080.64 of the interest arising out of the delayed enforcement of the judgment in her favour, calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia for the period from the domestic judgment's entry into force until the date of the Court's judgment.
49.  Mr Titov claimed RUB 115,000 of a full monetary value of a car as determined by the judgment in his favour, as well as the interest. He had not provided a detailed calculation of the interest. However, he submitted that the market value of a car had increased and amounted to RUB 350,000 on the date of submission of his claim.
50.  Mrs Gladkova claimed that RUB 109,609 of the initial judgment debt, as well as RUB 88,739.45 representing the interest calculated at the rate valid on 8 May 2009, the date of submission of her claims, should be awarded to her in respect of pecuniary damage.
51.  Mrs V. Plotnikova claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, without further substantiation.
52.  Finally, Mrs I. Plotnikova claimed RUB 110,940.96 equalling to the amount of the initial judgment debt.
53.  The Government submitted that no just satisfaction award should be made to the applicants, since there had been no violation of their rights. In any event, their claims were excessive and unreasonable. In particular, they argued that Mrs Sizintseva, Gladkova and I. Plotnikova could not claim the interest for the periods following the quashing of the respective judgments in their favour. They pointed out that Mr Titov had neither specified the method of calculation of the interest nor furnished any documents in respect of his claim. The Government further contested the submissions by Mrs V. Plotnikova as unfounded and stressed that she had failed to specify the method of the calculation or to itemise her claims under this head.
(b) The Court's assessment
54.  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, Series A no. 85, p. 16, § 12, 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.
55.  As regards the application by Mrs V. Plotnikova, the Court notes that the initial domestic award had remained unenforced until the date of its quashing and then was reduced as a result of the supervisory-review proceedings. Moreover, it appears that the new judgment debt had not been paid to the applicant either. In these circumstances, the Court awards the applicant the equivalent in euros of the full amount granted by the initial judgment of 24 April 2002 in her favour.
56.  As regards the remaining four cases, the Court notes that 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 considers appropriate to award the applicants the equivalent in euros of the sums that they would have received if the judgments in their favour had not been quashed (see Bolyukh v. Russia, no. 19134/05, § 39, 31 July 2007).
57.  The Court further recalls its constant approach that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value (see, mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005). The Court accepts the applicants' claims relating to the loss of value of the domestic awards since the delivery of the judgments in their favour and finds it appropriate to award additional sums in this respect, where they were requested (see Kondrashov and Others v. Russia, nos. 2068/03 et al., § 42, 8 January 2009). Taking into account that in none of the cases the Government had submitted any alternative method of calculation of the applicants' pecuniary losses, the Court will determine the compensation on the basis of the method suggested by the applicants. However, as regards the applicants' claims in respect of their future pecuniary loss, the Court recalls that after the final judgments were quashed they ceased to exist under domestic law; it cannot restore the power of these judgments. Therefore, the Court only grants the applicants' claims in respect of the interest in so far as they are made in respect of the periods preceding the quashing.
58.  Making its estimate on the basis of information at its disposal, the Court accordingly awards the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable:
EUR 3,804 to N. Sizintseva;
EUR 3,398 to S. Titov;
EUR 3,007 to R. Gladkova;
EUR 3,328 to V. Plotnikova;
EUR 3,354 to I. Plotnikova.
These amounts include the initial award and the compensation for loss of value of the domestic court awards for the periods preceding the quashing. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims under this head.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
59.  Mrs Sizintseva claimed RUB 100,000, Mr Titov EUR 5,000, Mrs Gladkova EUR 10,000, Mrs V. Plotnikova EUR 25,000 and Mrs I. Plotnikova RUB 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
60.  The Government challenged the claims as unsubstantiated and excessive. In case of Irina Plotnikova they suggested that, should the Court make any award under this head, the latter should not exceed EUR 2,000 (see Senchenko and Others and 35 other “Yakut pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 32865/06 et seq., § 15, 28 May 2009)
61.  Having regard to the nature of the breach in this case, making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards to each applicant the 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
1. Case of Mrs Sizintseva
62.  The applicant claimed reimbursement of the lawyer's fee in the amount of RUB 5,500 plus seven per cent of the eventual Court award. She submitted copies of the contract with the lawyer and a receipt confirming payment of RUB 3,000. She further claimed RUB 339,35 of postal expenses and submitted that she had paid RUB 300 to a local audit agency for the calculation of the pecuniary loss in her case.
63.  The Government contested the claims as excessive and unfounded.
64.  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. The Court accordingly rejects the claim related to the Court's eventual award. At the same time, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court allows the remainder of her claim and considers it reasonable to award Mrs Sizintseva the sum of EUR 99 (ninety-nine euros) for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
2. Four remaining cases
65.  The applicants in the remaining four cases did not claim costs or expenses and there is accordingly no call to make an award under this head.
C.  Default interest
66.  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.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement and quashing of the judgments in the applicants' favour on supervisory review admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3.  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;

4.  Holds, in respect of the applications by Mr Titov, Mrs Gladkova, Mrs V. Plotnikova and Mrs I. Plotnikova, that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour;
5.  Holds that there is no need to examine the non-enforcement complaint by Mrs Sizintseva under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement of the judgment of 4 August 2003;

6.  Holds
(a)  in respect of all applications, that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i) in respect of pecuniary damage:
EUR 3,804 (three thousand eight hundred and four euros) to N. Sizintseva;
EUR 3,398 (three thousand three hundred and ninety eight euros) to S. Titov;
EUR 3,007 (three thousand and seven euros) to R. Gladkova;
EUR 3,328 (three thousand three hundred and twenty-eight euros) to V. Plotnikova;
EUR 3,354 (three thousand three hundred and fifty four euros) to I. Plotnikova;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 99 (ninety-nine euros) to N. Sizintseva in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;

7.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis	Registrar	President

APPENDIX

application number, date of lodging	applicant's name and year of birth	judgment in the applicant's favour (date, court)	final on	Award (rub)	quashing on supervisory review (date)	
38585/04,
07/10/2004
	Sizintseva Nadezhda Petrovna
(1949)	4 August 2003, the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic
	The same date	127,825	27 May 2004	
2795/05
05/04/2005
	Titov Sergey Aleksandrovich
(1974)	14 March 2002, the Mirnyy District Court	10 June 2002, as amended on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic	115,000	14 October 2004	
18590/05
19/04/2005	Gladkova Rimma Petrovna
(1945)	11 February 2003, the Mirninyy District Court	24 March 2003	109,609	11 November 2004	
24012/07
08/05/2007
	Plotnikova Valentina Petrovna
(1937)	17 June 2002, the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic	The same date	91,520	23 November 2006 (award reduced to RUB 28,009)	
55283/07
30/05/2007	Plotnikova Irina Yakovlevma
(1952)	6 June 2003, the Nerungri Town Court	13 August 2003	110,940	21 December 2006