TY - JOUR TI - Compensation or Profanity? T2 - IS - AB - Тhe author compares the criteria of internal remedy against red tape when considering a case orexecuting a judgement applied by the European Court of Human Rights and legal guarantees set by theFederal Law of April 30, 2010 № 68-FZ On the Compensation for violating the right to proceedings indue time and right to executing the court ruling in reasonable time. The author concludes on limited legalmeans to claim compensation for red tape and the limited range of measures to claim compensationfor the violated right to a fair trial is interpreted by Russian authorities as a feature of national legalregulation. A legal case on protecting consumer rights is applied by the author to show the case practiceof interpreting the provisions of the law in question. The law exposes its inefficiency and new breaches of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).The reasons for its inefficiency of the Russian law are kept in its provisions and the procedural rules ofstudying the requirements to claim compensation for red tape during a trial. On the basis of the Law andits application, the author makes several conclusions. The legal institute of compensation for red tapedoes not meet the requirements of an efficient relief against red tape and Article 13 of the Conventionfor the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the legal decisions of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights on the complaints against Russia. Hence, the systematic issue of lentitudeof legal trials is not solved in Russia. There is a necessity in removing the inconsistencies as to therequirements of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention. The case practice of the Federal Law ofApril 30, 2010 № 68-FZ shows challenges in applying common principles and norms of international law. AU - Ekaterina Alekseevskaya UR - https://law-journal.hse.ru/en/2015--4/171411375.html PY - 2015 SP - 34-44 VL -