Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.07.2010 «Дело Никифоров (Nikiforov) против России» [англ.]

that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

58. 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

59. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
60. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was excessive in the light of the Court's case-law in similar cases.
61. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered physical pain, anxiety and frustration because of the ill-treatment inflicted on him at Nerekhta district police station and the ineffective investigation into his complaints. It considers, however, the applicant's claim excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard in particular to the extent of the applicant's injuries, it awards the applicant EUR 30,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

62. The applicant also claimed 2,720 Russian roubles (RUR) for postal expenses.
63. The Government pointed out that the receipts submitted by the applicant were unreadable.
64. 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, the sum of EUR 850 has already been paid to the applicant by way of legal aid. In such circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to make an award under this head.

C. Default interest

65. 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 alleged ill-treatment and effectiveness of the ensuing investigation admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs;
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 30,000 (thirty 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 on 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 July 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge G. Malinverni, joined by Judges C. Rozakis and S.E. Jebens, is annexed to this judgment. <*>
----------------

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10