Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.07.2010 <Дело Александр Матвеев (Aleksandr Matveyev) против России» [англ.]





domestic courts had refused to call certain witnesses on his behalf and generally failed to examine his case properly, the Court recalls that Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require as such the attendance and examination of every witness on behalf of an accused and a court is justified in refusing to summon witnesses whose statements could not be of any relevance in the case (see, amongst other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A No. 235-B). The Court observes that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies in this respect, since he never raised this issue before the trial court (see paragraph 27), and in any event did not substantiate, either before the domestic appeal court of before this Court, the necessity of calling this or that particular witness, and that the domestic courts' decisions in this respect do not appear arbitrary or unreasonable. Having regard to the facts as submitted by the applicant, the Court has not found any reason to believe that the proceedings did not comply with the fairness requirement of Article 6 of the Convention.
82. 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

83. 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

84. The applicant claimed compensation of 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
85. The Government submitted that this claim was unfounded and generally excessive.
86. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained stress and frustration as a result of the violation found. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 12,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

87. The applicant also claimed a lump sum of EUR 300 for the legal costs incurred before the Court.
88. The Government contested the applicant's claim.
89. 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 300 for the legal expenses incurred in relation to the proceedings before the Court.

C. Default interest

90. 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 conditions of the applicant's detention in SIZO No. 4 in St Petersburg (from 20 April 2000 to 7 September 2001 and from 23 January to 13 March 2002) and SIZO No. 3 in Moscow (from 10 September 2001 to 21 January 2002) admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation 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 in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 12,300 (twelve thousand three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 (three hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be c



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.1622 СЃ