The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Georgios A. Serghides, President,
\nGeorges Ravarani,
\nMar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to:<\/p>\n
the application (no.\u00a043038\/11) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Mr\u00a0Vitaliy Andreyevich Litvinovich (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 16\u00a0June 2011;<\/p>\n
the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) of the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments of 2\u00a0August 2006 and 27\u00a0May 2010 and the lack of an effective remedy, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;<\/p>\n
the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2020,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
![\"INTRODUCTION\"](\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/INTRODUCTION.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
1. This case concerns the authorities\u2019 failure to enforce final judgments in the applicant\u2019s favour in the part concerning the indexation of periodic compensation payments.<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kimry.<\/p>\n 3. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 5. In 1986 the applicant took part in emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site and suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. He became entitled to various social benefits in this connection.<\/p>\n I. Judgment of 2\u00a0August 2006 in the applicant\u2019s favour<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. On 2\u00a0August 2006 the Kimry Town Court of the Tver Region (\u201cthe Town Court\u201d) ordered the Military Commission of the Tver Region (\u201cthe debtor authority\u201d) to pay the applicant in arrears a lump sum in respect of certain compensation payments, and to make monthly and yearly payments in future. The court set the amounts of the periodic payments at 2,089\u00a0Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of monthly food allowance, RUB\u00a010,124 in respect of compensation for health damage and RUB\u00a02,957 in respect of yearly compensation for health damage, and ordered the debtor authority to index-link the monthly and yearly payments. The court did not specify the method of indexation.<\/p>\n 7. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable ten days later. Shortly thereafter the lump sum and monthly payments were paid to the applicant. The debtor authority refused to index-link subsequent payments, arguing that it was not competent to increase compensation payments if they had been awarded by a court.<\/p>\n II. Indexation proceedings in 2007-2008<\/strong><\/p>\n 8. On 13\u00a0July 2007 the Town Court allowed the applicant\u2019s separate claim for indexation of the periodic payments due to him under the judgment of 2\u00a0August 2006 for the year 2007. Referring to the inflation rate in Russia for the reference period, the court ordered the debtor authority to pay the applicant RUB\u00a010,133.87 in arrears and to index-link the monthly and yearly payments on a yearly basis, in accordance with domestic law.<\/p>\n 9. The debtor authority refused to index-link the monthly payments from August 2007 on the basis that the court had failed to specify the amounts due to the applicant. They argued, referring to instructions of the financial unit of their military circuit, that there was no legal mechanism allowing a military commission to index-link amounts awarded by a court and exceed those specified in Law no.\u00a01244-1 of 15\u00a0May 1991 (\u201cthe Chernobyl Law\u201d) in respect of monthly compensation for health damage and food allowance.<\/p>\n 10. On 8\u00a0February 2008 the Town Court clarified its judgment of 13\u00a0July 2007 at the applicant\u2019s request, setting the specific amounts of the payments (as applicable on 1\u00a0August 2007) in respect of relevant allowances.<\/p>\n 11. According to the Government, shortly after the above clarification the debtor authority paid the arrears and started making monthly payments in the amounts determined by the Town Court.<\/p>\n III. Clarification of the judgment of 2\u00a0August 2006 given in 2009<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. On 30\u00a0June 2009 the Town Court clarified its judgment of 2\u00a0August 2006 at the applicant\u2019s request, specifying that the amounts of compensation were to be index-linked in future in line with indexation coefficients established by governmental decrees. Accordingly, the court explained that subsequent payments in respect of food allowance and compensation for health damage were to be made in higher amounts than those determined in August 2006, and were to be reviewed and increased annually in line with the relevant coefficients. The clarification was not appealed against and became enforceable on 13\u00a0July 2009.<\/p>\n IV. Indexation proceedings in November 2009<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. On 18\u00a0November 2009 the Town Court allowed a claim by the applicant for indexation of the monthly payments for the period between 1\u00a0January 2008 and 1\u00a0November 2009, increased the periodic payments in line with inflation and ordered the debtor to pay him RUB\u00a081,497 in arrears. It appears that shortly thereafter the debtor authority paid the arrears.<\/p>\n 14. It appears that from November 2009 the debtor authority made periodic payments to the applicant in the amount determined by the court but did not index-link them.<\/p>\n V. Complaint of unlawfulness of the debtor authority\u2019s actions<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. On 27\u00a0May 2010 the Town Court allowed a complaint by the applicant, finding that the debtor authority had acted unlawfully, as since November 2009 it had submitted \u201cclaims and registers\u201d (\u00ab\u0437\u0430\u044f\u0432\u043a\u0438 \u0438 \u0440\u0435\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0440\u044b\u00bb) in respect of the payments due to the applicant in amounts lower than those established by the final judicial decisions in his favour. The court ordered the debtor authority \u201cto put an end to the identified shortcomings\u201d and to submit \u201cclaims and registers\u201d in respect of the compensation due to the applicant in good time and in compliance with the judicial decisions of 2\u00a0August 2006 and 30\u00a0June 2009. The judgment was not appealed against.<\/p>\n VI. Refusal of indexation in 2010<\/strong><\/p>\n 16. In late 2010 the applicant brought a new set of proceedings seeking indexation of the monthly payments for the period starting from November 2009. In a final decision of 23\u00a0December 2010 the Town Court discontinued the examination of his claim, finding that he had sought, in essence, to have the amounts awarded to him on 2\u00a0August 2006 completely recalculated. In the court\u2019s view, that had to be done in a separate civil action.<\/p>\n VII. The applicant\u2019s new request for clarification of the judgments<\/strong><\/p>\n 17. The applicant again asked the Town Court to clarify the judicial decisions of 2\u00a0August 2006, 30\u00a0June 2009 and 27\u00a0May 2010 in his favour.<\/p>\n 18. On 9\u00a0March 2011 the Town Court allowed his request in part and clarified that, in accordance with the judgment of 27\u00a0May 2010, the amounts due to the applicant (a) were to be index-linked using coefficients established by the government; (b) were to be increased on a yearly basis; and (c) had to be higher than those established in August 2006. The court refused to order payment of any specific sums, so as not to alter the substance of the initial judgment. On the same date the Town Court, in a separate ruling, drew the debtor\u2019s attention to its obligation to comply with the final judicial decisions of 2\u00a0August 2006, 30\u00a0June 2009 and 27\u00a0May 2010, and ordered it to put an end to the violation of the applicant\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n 19. On 3\u00a0May 2011 the Tver Regional Court (\u201cthe Regional Court\u201d) allowed an appeal by the debtor authority against the above ruling, quashed the clarification of 9\u00a0March 2011 and dismissed the applicant\u2019s request in full, finding that the operative part of the judgment of 27\u00a0May 2010 was sufficiently clear and did not require further clarification.<\/p>\n VIII. Subsequent developments<\/strong><\/p>\n 20. In December 2011 the debtor authority requested clarification of the judgment of 13\u00a0July 2007, arguing that pursuant to the internal instructions of the Ministry of Defence it could not index-link the amounts awarded by a court if they were higher than those specified in the relevant governmental decrees. The applicant argued in reply that the judgment was sufficiently clear and that, contrary to the debtor authority\u2019s assertion, did not refer to any specific \u201camounts\u201d contained in some governmental decrees, but to the inflation coefficients determined by the government on a yearly basis.<\/p>\n 21. On 22\u00a0December 2011 the Town Court dismissed the request, agreeing with the applicant\u2019s submissions. It held that his right to receive yearly compensation for health damage was provided for by domestic law, which meant that he was not required to reapply for it every year.<\/p>\n 22. In February 2013, when the latest exchange of observations by the parties took place, the judgments of 2\u00a0August 2006 and 27\u00a0May 2010 remained unenforced in the part concerning the indexation of the monthly and yearly social benefits.<\/p>\n RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK<\/strong><\/p>\n 23. Article\u00a0208 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for indexation of judicial awards: the court which made the award may adjust it at a party\u2019s request in line with the increase in the official retail price index until the date of actual payment.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE\u00a01 OF PROTOCOL\u00a0No.\u00a01 ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-ENFORCEMENT<\/p>\n 24. The applicant complained under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 2\u00a0August 2006 and 27\u00a0May 2010 in his favour. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01<\/p>\n \u201cEvery 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.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.\u201d<\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Submissions by the parties<\/em><\/p>\n 25. The Government submitted that the judgments had been fully enforced in so far as the lump sum payments were concerned. They argued, however, that the relevant judicial decisions had not specified the method of indexation. They noted that the amounts of compensation determined by the domestic courts on 2\u00a0August 2006 and 13\u00a0July 2007 (as clarified on 30\u00a0June 2009 and 8\u00a0February 2008 respectively) had significantly exceeded the amounts specified in the Chernobyl Law. Where Russian courts awarded claimants compensation in amounts higher than those specified in legislation, such awards could only be index-linked by the courts. Referring to certain instructions of the financial unit of the Moscow Military Circuit mandatory for the debtor authority, they argued that the indexation coefficients set by the government were inapplicable, and that therefore the debtor authority had had no basis for index-linking the award of 2\u00a0August 2006. They further submitted that the applicant had failed to lodge a claim for indexation after 8\u00a0February 2008. Accordingly, the Government argued that the application was manifestly ill-founded, as the authorities had taken all the measures necessary to enforce the judgments.<\/p>\n 26. The applicant submitted in reply that he had made multiple complaints to various authorities and had notably lodged several claims for indexation since 2008, but to no avail. He argued that the clarification of 30\u00a0June 2009 had provided the debtor authority with sufficiently precise indications as to the method of calculation, and that, contrary to the Government\u2019s submissions, the debtor authority had clearly been able to index-link the payments using the yearly coefficients set by the government.<\/p>\n 2. The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 27. The Court notes at the outset that the applicant\u2019s right to have his allowances index-linked is not disputed, as indexation was ordered by the Town Court in the initial judgment of 2\u00a0August 2006 and upheld by the domestic courts on several occasions (see paragraphs\u00a06, 8, 10, 13, 15, 19 and 21 above, and contrast to Nachkebiya v\u00a0Russia (dec). [Committee], no.\u00a06351\/13, 12\u00a0May 2020).<\/p>\n 28. In so far as the Government may be understood to be arguing that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that is to say, to lodge a new claim for indexation after February 2008, the Court observes that he regularly brought proceedings for indexation of the amounts awarded to him on 2\u00a0August 2006 (see paragraphs\u00a08 and 13 above), including for the period from November 2009, but that in the latest round of proceedings the courts disallowed his claim (see paragraph\u00a016 above). Accordingly, the non\u2011exhaustion objection is to be dismissed.<\/p>\n 29. In addition, the Court observes that the applicant requested the Town Court to clarify the method of indexation on at least three occasions (see paragraphs\u00a010, 12 and 17 above), and his latest request was disallowed in 2011 as there was no need for further clarification (see paragraph\u00a019 above). Otherwise, it is unclear which further steps he had to take either to obtain enforcement or to receive further clarification concerning the method of indexation. It cannot therefore be said that he failed to comply with the minimum requirement of cooperation with the authorities (contrast Gadzhikhanov and Saukov v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a010511\/08 and 5866\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a025-31, 31\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 30. Lastly, the Government may be understood as raising a ratione materiae objection, referring to the lack of any basis for the applicant\u2019s claim in the domestic law and to the domestic courts\u2019 failure to specify the method of indexation. It is true that the judgments of 2\u00a0August 2006 and 27\u00a0May 2010 did not specify a method of indexation (see paragraphs\u00a06 and 15 above). In certain cases, the Court has been prepared to accept that a claim was not sufficiently established so as to qualify as an \u201casset\u201d within the meaning of Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01, where the relevant domestic judgment did not specify the amount of the claim or the procedure for payment of any sum due, and where, furthermore, the Court did not have information to allow it to make any calculations as to the amount due to the applicant (see Nagovitsyn v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a06859\/02, \u00a7\u00a038, 24\u00a0January 2008). However, the present case is different for the following reasons.<\/p>\n 31. Firstly, as regards the method of indexation, the domestic courts in the indexation and clarification decisions consistently referred to the inflation coefficients published by the government every year. It is not the Court\u2019s task to decide whether the method referred to by the Town Court was correct in terms of domestic law. It is sufficient for the Court to note that the required calculation could be effectively performed using those coefficients, and that the courts had no difficulty in applying them for the period between the initial judgment and November 2009 (see paragraphs\u00a010 and 13 above; see further, for the courts\u2019 acceptance of the applicant\u2019s method of calculation in 2011, paragraphs\u00a020-21 above).<\/p>\n 32. Secondly, since 2009 the domestic courts have consistently rejected the parties\u2019 requests for further clarification of the judgments, precisely on the grounds that those judgments were sufficiently clear in their terms to be enforceable (see paragraphs\u00a019 and 21 above). The Court sees no reason to depart from these findings. It therefore considers that the judgment of 2\u00a0August 2006, as subsequently clarified, contained the information necessary to calculate the amounts due to the applicant as a result of indexation (see, mutatis mutandis, Bulgakova v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a069524\/01, \u00a7\u00a029, 18\u00a0January 2007, and Shakhirzyanov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a039888\/02, \u00a7\u00a023, 20\u00a0November 2008). In the Court\u2019s view, and as appears from the debtor authority\u2019s submissions to the domestic courts (see paragraphs\u00a07, 9 and 20 above), it was not the lack of clarity of the operative parts of the relevant judicial decisions, but rather the absence of a corresponding financial mechanism at the debtor\u2019s level which prevented enforcement of the judgment. The Court further notes that, despite an apparent disagreement with the Town Court\u2019s findings, the debtor authority, for unknown reasons, chose not to appeal against either the judgments of 2\u00a0August 2006 and 27\u00a0May 2010 or the clarification of 30\u00a0June 2009 to a higher court (see paragraphs\u00a07, 12 and 15 above), but preferred to raise their objections to the enforceability of the judicial awards at the enforcement stage.<\/p>\n 33. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant\u2019s claim established by the initial judgment in his favour of 2\u00a0August 2006, as clarified on 30\u00a0June 2009 and upheld on 27\u00a0May 2010, was sufficiently clear and specific to be enforceable (see, mutatis mutandis, Bulgakova, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a029-31). Accordingly, the proceedings at issue established a particular pecuniary obligation of the State vis-\u00e0-vis the applicant. The Court further considers that there existed \u201ca genuine and serious dispute\u201d over a \u201ccivil right\u201d which could be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, and that the outcome was decisive for the applicant, as required for the applicability of the civil limb of Article\u00a06 of the Convention (see Denisov v.\u00a0Ukraine [GC], no.\u00a076639\/11, \u00a7\u00a044, 25\u00a0September 2018). The objection is therefore to be dismissed.<\/p>\n 34. The Court further notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill\u2011founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article\u00a035 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 35. The parties agree that that the lump sums awarded by the Town Court on 2\u00a0August 2006 were paid to the applicant without undue delay (see paragraph\u00a07 above). It further appears that the debts accrued as a result of the non-indexation of the initial awards between 2007 and November 2009 were each time paid to the applicant within periods not exceeding one year (see paragraphs\u00a011 and 13 above), which seems reasonable.<\/p>\n 36. However, the parties further agree that, despite the court order, no indexation of the periodic payments took place between November 2009 and at least February 2013 (see paragraphs 14 and 22 above), that is to say, for more than three years. That period is prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Convention.<\/p>\n 37. Having regard to its above findings (see paragraphs\u00a028\u201229 and 31\u201132 above), the Court finds that the delay in enforcement cannot be attributed to the applicant. On the other hand, and as regards the authorities\u2019 reference to the absence of a financial mechanism allowing for the requisite indexation, the Court reiterates that the complexity of the domestic enforcement procedure or State budgetary system cannot relieve the State of its obligation to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time (see, among many other authorities, Burdov (no.\u00a02), no.\u00a033509\/04, \u00a7\u00a070, ECHR\u00a02009). Having regard to its case-law (see Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a029920\/05 and 10 others, 1 July 2014), the Court finds that by failing, for years, to comply with the enforceable judgments in the applicant\u2019s favour, the domestic authorities impaired the essence of his right to a court, and that this failure also constituted an unjustified interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.<\/p>\n 38. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 on account of the non\u2011enforcement of the judgments of 2\u00a0August 2006 (as clarified on 30\u00a0June 2009) and 27\u00a0May 2010.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 39. The applicant complained under Article\u00a013 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his non-enforcement complaint. Article\u00a013 reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 40. The Court has already noted the existence of a new domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of domestic judgments imposing obligations of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature on the Russian authorities, introduced in the wake of the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment (cited above) by Federal Law No.\u00a0450-FZ amending the Compensation Act of 2010 (for further details and the Court\u2019s assessment of the remedy, see Shtolts and Others v. Russia, nos. 77056\/14 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a030-78, 87-116 and \u00a7\u00a0123, 30\u00a0January 2018). In the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy and in line with its previous decisions, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article\u00a013 (see, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a044387\/04 and 11\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a021-24, 25\u00a0October 2011).<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 41. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n A. Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 42. The applicant claimed 180,000 Russian roubles ((RUB)\u00a0\u2013 approximately 4,425\u00a0euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB\u00a0250,000 (approximately EUR 6,145) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 43. The Government contested the claims, arguing that the applicant\u2019s rights had not been violated and that, in any event, the claim in respect of pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated and the amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive.<\/p>\n 44. As regards the pecuniary damage, in the absence of either an itemised calculation or documents in support of the claim, the Court is not in a position to assess the accuracy of the amount claimed, and accordingly rejects the claim as submitted by the applicant. However, the Court further notes that it has found established that the periodic payments in the applicant\u2019s favour had not been index-linked between November 2009 and at least February 2013 (see paragraph\u00a037 above). Therefore, the applicant was prevented from receiving the amounts he had legitimately expected to receive under the binding and enforceable judicial decisions. Accordingly, in the Court\u2019s view, the State has an outstanding obligation to enforce, by appropriate means, the domestic judicial decisions which remain unenforced in so far as the arrears in index-linked periodic payments for the impugned period are concerned (see, among others, Pridatchenko and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a02191\/03 and 3 others, \u00a7\u00a068, 21\u00a0June 2007). The Court further awards the applicant EUR\u00a03,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and rejects the remainder of his claim under this head.<\/p>\n B. Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 45. The applicant did not submit a claim in respect of costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no need to make an award under this head.<\/p>\n C. Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 46. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the complaint under Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments of 2\u00a0August 2006 and of 27\u00a0May 2010 admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 on account of the non\u2011enforcement of the judgments of 2\u00a0August 2006 and of 27\u00a0May 2010 in the applicant\u2019s favour;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article\u00a013 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the domestic judicial decisions in the applicant\u2019s favour which remain unenforced in so far as the arrears in index-linked periodic payments are concerned;<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR\u00a03,900 (three thousand nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n 6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 December 2020, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Olga Chernishova \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Georgios A. Serghides
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n