Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 16.09.2010 «Дело Дмитрачков (Dmitrachkov) против России» [англ.]

62. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

63. Lastly, as regards the complaints about the alleged general unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court finds that they have not been sufficiently made out and do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
64. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

65. 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

66. The applicant claimed compensation of 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for damage.
67. The Government argued that the claims were unsubstantiated and in any event unrelated to any damage allegedly inflicted.
68. The Court observes that it has found above that the authorities subjected the applicant to inhuman treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Under this provision it has also found that there was no effective investigation in respect of the events of 16 April 2001. Having regard to the seriousness of the violations of the Convention as well as to its established case-law (see Mikheyev v. Russia, No. 77617/01, § 163, 26 January 2006, and Selmouni, cited above, § 123), the Court awards the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

69. The applicants claimed RUB 15,000 for legal costs incurred during the domestic proceedings, RUB 10,000 in respect of legal costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and RUB 50,000 for translation, fuel and postal expenses allegedly incurred during the Strasbourg proceedings.
70. The Government accepted the applicant's claim for legal and translation expenses in the amount of RUB 26,433. They contested the remainder of the claims as unsubstantiated.
71. 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. Having regard to the material in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 400 for the legal and translation expenses incurred in relation to the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amounts.

C. Default interest

72. 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 complaints concerning the applicant's ill-treatment by police officers during his detention between 16 and 18 April 2001 and the domestic authorities' failure to investigate the matter admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of both the substantive and procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44

> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10