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

ce that the applicant did not request that the witnesses be heard again. It was for the domestic judicial authorities to secure the defendant's right to have evidence adduced at a public hearing (see Riepan, cited above, § 41).
36. Having regard to the above, the Court finds no justification for the lack of a public hearing at first instance in the present case. Nor does it find that such lack of a public hearing was remedied by the appeal court hearing the case in public. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

37. The applicant further made a number of complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention relating to his arrest, pre-trial detention and fairness of the trial. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

38. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

39. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
40. The Government considered the applicant's claim excessive and unsubstantiated. They further proposed that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
41. The Court considers that the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant cannot be sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court further notes that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention.

B. Costs and expenses

42. The applicant also claimed compensation, leaving its amount to the Court's discretion, for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
43. The Government considered that the applicant's claim should be rejected.
44. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of 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. In the present case, the amount of EUR 850 has already been paid to the applicant by way of legal aid. In such circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to make an award under this head.

C. Default interest

45. 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 lack of a public hearing admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. 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, EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7