Компенсация или профанация?

Право. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2015. № 4. С. 34–44.

Alexeevskaya E.

Тhe author analyzes the federal law of 30.04.2010 № 68-ФЗ, comparing it with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Such legal rugulirovanie positioned as a national tradition of law. On the example of a particular case, falls within the category of consumer protection, the author demonstrates the current judicial practice of applying the provisions of the same Act. Approbation of the mentioned law reveals its ineffectiveness and new violations of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The reasons for its inefficiency is the rules of law and procedural rules in the consideration and resolution of the applicants' claim for compensation for damage caused judicial red tape. Analyzing the rule of law and judicial practice of its application, author concludes. The adopted law does not meet the requirements of an effective domestic remedy for judicial red tape, set out in Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on complaints against Russia. Systemic problem of excessive length of the proceedings and the enforcement of the judgment by the state has not been solved. There is an objective need to address the identified gaps requirements of Article 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, both substantive and procedural law. The practice of applying the provisions of the Compensation Act demonstrates that there are significant difficulties in the direct application of generally accepted principles and norms of international law.

Keywords: компенсация, compensation, правосудие, harm, моральный вред, разумный срок судопроизводства, волокита, Justice, вред, red tape, fair trial, справедливое судебное разбирательство, reasonable time, moral damages, процессуальный срок