Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2010 «Дело Рудаков (Rudakov) против России» [англ.]

g and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant the sum claimed in full, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

74. The applicant, relying on the contract with his lawyers, also claimed EUR 5,000 for legal fees incurred during the proceedings before the Court.
75. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to produce any documents in support of his claim. They further submitted that the expenses claimed had, in any event, been unnecessary and unreasonable.
76. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court observes that in January 2008 the applicant issued the lawyers, Mr F. Bagryanskiy, Mr M. Ovchinnikov and Mr A. Mikhaylov, with authority to represent his interests in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. Counsel acted as the applicant's representatives following the communication of the case to the respondent Government. It is clear from the length and detail of the pleadings submitted by the applicant that a great deal of work was carried out on his behalf. Having regard to the information in its possession, the Court is satisfied that the sum claimed is reasonable. The Court therefore awards the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, together with any tax that may be chargeable to him on that amount.

C. Default interest

77. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaint concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant in the prison and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the incident admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment to which the applicant was subjected on 11 July 2003 in the Vladimirskiy Tsentral prison;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to investigate effectively the applicant's complaint about the inhuman and degrading treatment to which he was subjected in the Vladimirskiy Tsentral prison;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable to him on the above amounts;
(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 October 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16