Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.07.2010 <Дело Копылов (Kopylov) против России» [англ.]

apacity."
176. The Court observes that this complaint concerns the same issues as those examined in paragraphs 132 to 142 and 166 to 173 above under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, the complaint should be declared admissible. However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention.

V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

177. 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

178. The applicant claimed 220,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He submitted that he had been subjected to prolonged torture and had suffered exceptionally serious and irreversible damage to his health as a result. He added that he had to follow constant and expensive treatment, had difficulty walking and was dependent on other people in his everyday life. He had become unable to work and develop professionally. All these factors caused him constant and severe mental anguish and physical suffering.
179. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive. The applicant had not submitted any documents confirming the amount of the medical expenses and therefore he was not entitled to compensation in respect of pecuniary damage.
180. The Court reiterates that the amount it will award under the head of non-pecuniary damage under Article 41 may be less than that indicated in its case-law where the applicant has already obtained a finding of a violation at domestic level and compensation by using a domestic remedy. The Court considers, however, that where an applicant can still claim to be a "victim" after making use of that domestic remedy he or she must be awarded the difference between the amount actually obtained from the national authorities and an amount that would not have been regarded as manifestly unreasonable compared with the amount awarded by the Court in analogous cases.
181. Regard being had to the above criteria, and taking into account the severity of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected and the very serious consequences it entailed for his health, the Court awards the applicant EUR 105,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

182. The applicant did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.

C. Default interest

183. 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. Decides to join to the merits the question whether the applicant may still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the treatment to which he was subjected from January to April 2001;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that the applicant may still claim to be a victim and that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the treatment to which he was subjected from January to April 2001;
4. 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 complaints about his ill-treatment from January to April 2001;
5. Holds that there has

> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26