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 29.04.2010 «Дело Христофоров (Khristoforov) против России» [англ.]





on account of the degrading conditions of the applicant's detention in the temporary detention facility at the Severo-Evensk District police station in the Magadan Region.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

30. 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

31. The applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
32. The Government considered the applicant's claims excessive and suggested that the acknowledgment of a violation would constitute adequate just satisfaction.
33. The Court observes that the applicant spent seven and a half months in inhuman and degrading conditions. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

34. The applicant also claimed compensation, without specifying the amount, for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court.
35. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had actually and necessarily incurred any costs and expenses in the proceedings before the Court.
36. 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 amount 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

37. 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
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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 29 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Nina {VAJIC}
President

{Andre} WAMPACH
Deputy Registrar






> 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.1398 СЃ