III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

48. Lastly, the applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2004 and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review violated his rights enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention.

49. In so far as the applicant may be understood to complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the continued non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour, the Court considers that, having regard to the above findings (see paragraph 47 above), it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 13 (see Tolokonnikova v. Russia, No. 24651/03, § 27, 17 November 2005, and Gerasimenko v. Russia, No. 24657/03, § 29, 17 November 2005).

50. Thus, the Court rejects this complaint under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

51. In so far as the applicant may be understood to complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judgment in his favour, the Court notes that Article 13 of the Convention does not, as such, guarantee the right to appellate remedies in respect of a decision taken by way of supervisory review, and the mere fact that the judgment of the highest judicial body is not subject to further judicial review does not infringe in itself the said provision (see Tregubenko v. Ukraine (dec.), No. 61333/00, 21 October 2003, and Sitkov v. Russia (dec.), No. 55531/00, 9 November 2004).

52. It follows that this part of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 thereof.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

53. 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

54. The applicant claimed that the Government should pay him 252,510.91 Russian roubles (RUR) lost as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2004 and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review. He also claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

55. The Government did not comment on the applicant's claims for pecuniary damage. As regards the non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that the applicant's claim was excessive and unreasonable.

56. The Court recalls that in the instant case it found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that the judgment in the applicant's favour remained unenforced for a long period of time and was subsequently quashed. The applicant was thereby prevented from receiving the money he had legitimately expected to receive. There is, therefore, a causal link between the violations found and the applicant's claim for the pecuniary damage. At the same time the Court bears in mind the fact that the domestic court considered the applicant's claims as examined by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don on 18 July 2005 to be the same as those examined by the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region on 15 September 2004. It further recalls that following the judgment of 18 July 2005 the applicant received RUR 14,038.44. Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to award the applicant RUR 238,472.47, which represents the difference between the sum claimed and the sum received by the applicant under the judgment of 18 July 2005.

57. The Court further considers that the applicant suffered distress because of the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment in his favour and its subsequent decision to quash it. The Court takes into account the amount and nature of the award in the instant case and the period of the authorities' inactivity. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant the amount of EUR 4,300, plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.

B. Costs and expenses

58. The applicant did not claim costs or expenses and there is accordingly no call to make an award under this head.

C. Default interest

59. 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. Declares the complaints concerning the continued non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2004 in the applicant's favour and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review admissible and the remaining complaints inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of supervisory review;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2004;

4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:

(i) RUR 238,472.47 (two hundred thirty-eight thousand four hundred and seventy-two Russian roubles forty-seven kopecks) in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 4,300 (four thousand three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS

President

{Soren} NIELSEN

Registrar

26 января 1996 года N 14-ФЗ