e 13 of the Convention in relation to complaints in the context of expulsion and extradition, provided that the courts can effectively review the legality of executive discretion on substantive and procedural grounds and quash decisions as appropriate (see Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], No. 48321/99, § 99, ECHR 2002-II). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the decision of the Prosecutor General's office to extradite the applicant was upheld on appeal by the Tyumen regional court and the Supreme Court. In their decisions the domestic courts did not conduct a detailed examination of the applicant's allegation of the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan and only referred in general terms to the assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities (see paragraphs 28 and 31 above). Consequently, the courts failed to rigorously scrutinise the applicant's claims of the risk of ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan.
138. It should also be noted that the Government did not refer to any provisions of domestic legislation which could have afforded redress in the applicant's situation or had a suspensive effect on his extradition (see, mutatis mutandis, Muminov, cited above, §§ 102 - 104).
139. Accordingly, the Court concludes that in the circumstances of the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention because the applicant was not afforded an effective and accessible remedy in relation to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
140. As regards the applicant's complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, in the light of the Court's established case-law stating that the more specific guarantees of Article 5, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements (see Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), No. 55861/00, 9 May 2006) and in view of its above findings of violations of Article 5 of the Convention, the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 in connection with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
141. 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
142. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
143. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was excessive and that if the Court found any violation of the Convention the amount of the award should be decreased.
144. The Court, making an assessment on an equitable basis, awards EUR 20,000 to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage as requested plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
145. Relying on the fee agreements and the lawyers' timesheets, the applicant claimed EUR 3,700 or 3,239 pounds sterling (GBP) for the work of London-based lawyers Mr W. Bowring and Ms J. Evans together with administrative and translation costs and EUR 2,000 for the work of Ms Ryabinina for his representation before the domestic authorities and the Court.
146. The Government submitted that the applicant had not submitted any proof that the payments had actually been made and that the amounts were reasonable.
147. 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, regard being had to the documents in its
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
