CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

I share the conclusion of the Chamber that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No.1: by failing to execute final court decisions in the applicant ' s favour for 66 months, the national authorities deprived the above provision of the Convention of all useful effects and prevented the applicant from receiving the child benefits due to her.

My problem is the application of Article 41 of the Convention. In similar cases of non-enforcement of judgments of national courts concerning the child benefits (see inter alia Pozhakhirina v. Russia , 25964/01, Judgment of 6 July 2005; Suntsova v. Russia , 55687/00, Judgment of 17 November 2005, Bratchikova v. Russia , 66462/01, Judgment of 12 April 2006 and 9 similar judgments adopted the same day in the cases from the same region) the Court considered that having regard to the nature of the breach in these cases (child benefits not constituting the main source of income) finding a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. But the repeated character of this kind of violation, the increasing amount of non-paid sums and prolonged period of non-enforcement justify the Court ' s new approach: in Bragina judgment as in 6 other judgments of the same nature ( Nartova v. Russia , 33685/05, Deykina v. Russia , 33689/05; Lyudmila Aleksentseva v. Russia , 33706/05; Voloskova v. Russia , 33707/05; Zaichenko v. Russia , 33720/05; Voronina v. Russia , 33728/05) the Court decided to apply the principle of non-pecuniary damage established in the case of Burdov v. Russia , so the non-paid child benefits are now considered an integral part of the applicant ' s income. I agree with this solution but I would like to see more detailed arguments of this “old new” approach than those given in § 31 of the Judgment.