Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Колесник (Kolesnik) против России» [англ.]

in Turkmenistan. They relied on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
91. The Government contested that argument.
92. The Court notes that the decisions of the Moscow Inter-District Transport Prosecutor of 28 August 2007 and of the General Prosecutor's Office of 22 February 2008 to extradite the first applicant clearly referred to the documents submitted by the authorities of Turkmenistan by which the first applicant had been charged with the imputed offences (see paragraphs 25 and 27 above). Similarly, the decisions of the courts on the lawfulness of the extradition order were construed so as to describe the charges pending against the first applicant in Turkmenistan (see paragraph 37 above). In such circumstances the Court does not consider that the statements by the Russian officials amounted to a declaration of the first applicant's guilt, but rather described the "state of suspicion" which had served as the basis for the extradition request and the subsequent decision to extradite her (in contrast to Ismoilov, cited above, § 171).
93. It follows 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.

IV. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention

94. The applicants complained that the first applicant's extradition to Turkmenistan would result in a violation of their family life. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention.
95. The Government contested that argument.
96. Assuming that this complaint is to be declared admissible, having regard to the above finding relating to Article 3, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 8 (see, among other authorities, Hilal v. the United Kingdom, No. 45276/99, § 71, ECHR 2001-II).

V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

97. 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

98. The applicants submitted that as a result of the violations endured they had suffered non-pecuniary damage. They left the amount of the compensation to be determined by the Court.
99. The Government disputed that any damage has been caused to the applicants; or, alternatively, that the finding of a violation had constituted sufficient compensation.
100. The Court has found that the first applicant's extradition to Turkmenistan would be in violation of Article 3. It also found a violation of two provisions of Article 5 in respect of the first applicant. The Court accepts that the first applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated solely by the findings of violations and finds it appropriate to award her 24,000 euros (EUR) in this respect.

B. Costs and expenses

101. The applicants claimed a total of 78,250 Russian roubles (RUB) (EUR 1,739) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 4,930 for those incurred before the Court. In support of their claims, the applicants submitted agreements with two lawyers: Mrs Tseytlina and Mr Gaytayev, as well as details of the work carried out by Mrs Ryabinina. The hourly rate for the lawyers' work related to the representation before the Court was set at EUR 100, while their services in the domestic proceedings were determined in advance by set amounts. In addition to these sums, the applicants claimed postal and administrative costs in the amount of 7% of the legal costs.
102. The Government questioned t

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14