Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.09.2010 <Дело Сергей Тимофеев (Sergey Timofeyev) против России» [англ.]

cordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of proceedings.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

95. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d), as well as on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the applicant complained that the hearing of 14 April 1999 had been held in his absence, that the domestic courts had erred in their assessment of evidence and application of law, that he had not been given enough time to prepare his last plea and that the first-instance court had not questioned a number of important witnesses.
96. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and as far as it is within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant's submissions disclose no appearance of violations of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

97. 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

98. In his application form the applicant claimed 100,000 United States dollars in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In his just satisfaction claims the applicant left it to the Court to determine the exact amount to be awarded under this head.
99. The Government found the amount mentioned in the application form to be excessive.
100. The Court finds it appropriate to award the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B. Default interest

101. 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 absence from the appeal hearing and the length of proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's absence from the appeal hearing;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of proceedings;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

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

Peer LORENZEN
President

Stephen PHILLIPS
Deputy Registrar

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9