III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- Four of the applicants (Mr Davydov, Mr Belyakov, Mr Truskanov and Ms Pushkareva) claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The other applicants did not seek any awards.
- The Government found the sums claimed to be excessive.
- The Court agrees that the applicants are victims of a violation of the right to free elections and that such a finding can lead to an award compensating for non-pecuniary damage. It awards the four applicants listed above EUR 7,500 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- Costs and expenses
- Six applicants claimed a total of EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses incurred before the Court. They stated that Ms Napara had spent 50 billable hours on the case (at a rate of EUR 100 per hour) and Ms Moskalenko 25 billable hours (at a rate of EUR 150 per hour).
- The Government stressed that the applicants had no written contract with the representatives, which made their claim unsubstantiated.
- According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his or her costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The absence of a written agreement to recover fees does not exclude the existence of a contractual obligation (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV). The Court observes that Ms Moskalenko and Ms Napara represented the applicants throughout the proceedings before the Court; in particular, they submitted their applications and submitted written observations on their behalf. Having regard to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 8,000 as claimed (EUR 5,000 to Ms Napara and EUR 3,000 to Ms Moskalenko), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. The amounts awarded shall be payable into the representatives’ bank accounts directly, as requested by the applicants.
- Default interest
- The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
- Decides to strike applicants seven and eight (Mr Yakushenko and Mr Payalin) out of the list of applicants in the present case (see Appendix);
- Declares the complaints of the remaining nine applicants under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of these nine applicants;
- Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
- Holds that the respondent State has not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the first two applicants;
(a) 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 amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) each, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to Mr Davydov, Mr Belyakov, Mr Truskanov and Ms Pushkareva;
(ii) EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses. This amount should be paid directly to the representatives’ accounts, as detailed in paragraph 354 above;
(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 30 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
|No.||Applicant’s name and year of birth||Date application lodged/withdrawn||Represented by/Date power of attorney signed||Role in the elections and territorial/precinct electoral commissions concerned||Complains about|
|1.||Davydov Andrey Vladimirovich, 1987||8 December 2011||Ms Moskalenko (8 December 2011);
(8 December 2011; 31 March 2014)
|Candidate for LA on Spravedlivaya Rossiya (SR) list. Complains about results of electoral division no. 19 (Kolpino District) of St Petersburg. Challenges results in 21 precincts: nos. 638, 639, 641, 642, 643, 644, 646, 648, 649, 651, 652, 653, 654, 657, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667 and 668.||Right to be elected to the St Petersburg LA|
|2.||Andronova Olga Olegovna, 1953||Ms Moskalenko (9 December 2011);
(9 December 2011)
|Voter and voting member of PEC no. 652 (SR) in Kolpino District, electoral division no. 19.||Right to vote in elections to LA and the State Duma|
|3.||Andronov Aleksey Viktorovich, 1986||Ms Moskalenko (9 December 2011);
(9 December 2011)
|Voter and voting member (SR) of PEC no. 651 in Kolpino District, electoral division no. 19.|
|4.||Nikolayeva Tatyana Alekseyevna, 1988||Ms Moskalenko (no date);
|Voter and voting member (SR) of PEC no. 654 in Kolpino District, electoral division no. 19.|
|5.||Sizenov Yevgeniy Petrovich, 1972||Ms Moskalenko (no date);
(31 March 2014)
|Voter and voting member (Yabloko) of PEC no. 661 in Kolpino District, electoral division no. 19.|
|6.||Belyakov Vladimir Gennadyevich, 1948||15 March 2012||Ms Moskalenko (27 January 2012);
(27 January 2012,
2 April 2014)
|Voter in electoral precinct no. 637 in Kolpino District, electoral division no. 18.||Right to vote in elections to LA|
|7.||Yakushenko Sergey Vasilevich, 1954||15 March 2012.
On 4 April 2014
Mrs Napara informed the Court about the applicant’s request to withdraw his complaint.
|Ms Moskalenko (16 January 2012)||Voter in electoral precinct no. 623 in Kolpino District, electoral division no. 18.|
|8.||Payalin Nikolay Lvovich, 1968||15 March 2012.
On 12 May 2014 signed a request to withdraw complaint, for personal reasons.
|Ms Moskalenko (12 January 2012);
(12 January 2012,
31 March 2014)
|Candidate in LA elections on SR list. Complains about results of electoral division no. 22 of St Petersburg. Challenges official results in 22 precincts: nos. 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 731, 733, 734, 735, 736, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745 and 794.||Right to be elected to LA|
|9.||Truskanov Gennadiy Borisovich, 1946||15 March 2012||Ms Moskalenko (27 January 2012);
(27 January 2012,
31 March 2014)
|Candidate in LA elections on SR list. Complains about results of electoral division no. 17 of St Petersburg. Challenges official results in 10 precincts: nos. 486, 489, 495, 496, 497, 498, 500, 501, 508 and 509; and the procedure in two “closed” precincts nos. 1852 and 1853.|
|10.||Pushkareva Lyudmila Vasilyevna, 1957||Ms Moskalenko (8 December 2011);
(10 March 2012)
|Candidate in LA elections on SR list. Complains about results in electoral division no. 33 of St Petersburg. Challenges official results in 18 precincts: nos. 1070, 1084, 1089, 1090, 1093, 1097, 1098, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1111, 1114, 1115, 1118, 1126 and 1127; and the results cancelled in precincts nos. 1071, 1091, 1099 and 1113.|
|11.||Shestakov Sergey Sergeyevich, 1982||Ms Moskalenko (8 December 2011);
(10 March 2012)
|Candidate in LA elections on SR list. Complains about results of electoral division no. 15 of St Petersburg. Challenged results in 13 precincts: nos. 554, 555, 557, 592, 593, 597, 598, 600, 601, 605, 606, 610 and 611; plus procedural violations claimed in 16 precincts: nos. 549, 552, 553, 554, 444, 446, 558, 592, 594, 598, 601, 605, 606, 607, 608 and 611.|