PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES UGREKHELIDZE AND KOVLER

We share the conclusions of the Chamber concerning a violation of Art i cle 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol no. 1, but we regret that the Chamber did not follow the Court ’ s case-law in recent non-enforcement cases where the Court held that the respondent Government, within three months from the date on which the judgment b e comes fi nal , according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the domestic court. ( Makarova and others v. Russia , no. 7023/03, 24 February 2005 ; Plotnikovy v. Russia , no.43883/02, 24 Febr u ary 2005 ).

This clause would have permitted, in our opinion, to follow the domestic procedure of enforcement and to determine an appropriate amount of interest in accordance with the domestic rules.

The wording adopted by the majority of the Chamber in paragraph 3 (a) of the operative part of the judgment seems to fail to take into account the actual interest accrued during a long period of non-enforcement. We fear that this approach could foster an incorrect interpretation of the principle of “just satisfaction to the injured party”, provided in Article 41 of the Convention. It might also create certain difficulties for the respondent Government in the course of the ex e cution of the judgment.