Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 24.06.2010 «Дело Велиев (Veliyev) против России» [англ.]

that only one fully fledged hearing was held in 2005, that there were few hearings between December 2005 and February 2006 and that the Government failed to account for the period between May and November 2006. The appeal proceedings were pending for more than seven months. Nor does the Court lose sight of the fact that throughout the proceedings the applicant remained in custody, in the cramped conditions referred to above (see paragraphs 129 and 130, and 145 - 158 above).
179. It is true that Article 6 commands that judicial proceedings be expeditious, but it also lays down the more general principle of the proper administration of justice (see Boddaert v. Belgium, 12 October 1992, § 39, Series A No. 235-D). However, in the circumstances of the case, the Court is not satisfied that the conduct of the authorities was consistent with the fair balance which has to be struck between the various aspects of this fundamental requirement.
180. Making an overall assessment, the Court concludes that in the circumstances of the case the "reasonable time" requirement has not been complied with. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

181. 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

182. The applicant claimed compensation of 35,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
183. The Government submitted that these claims were unfounded and generally excessive.
184. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained stress and frustration as a result of the violations found. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 23,400 (twenty three thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

185. The applicant also claimed a lump sum of EUR 7,000 for the legal costs incurred before the Court.
186. The Government contested the applicant's claims.
187. 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 him the sum of EUR 1,000 for the legal expenses incurred in relation to the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.

C. Default interest

188. 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 application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in respect of the period from 6 February to 28 March 2005;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
7. 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

> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22