ound and the pecuniary damage claimed (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 102, 2 March 2006). Furthermore, the applicant did not submit documents confirming expenses which he allegedly accrued. Consequently the Court finds no reason to award the applicant any sum under this head.
110. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court observes that it has found a combination of violations in the present case. The Court accepts that the applicant suffered humiliation and distress because of the appalling conditions of his detention for more than four years, the excessive length of his detention and the criminal proceedings against him. In these circumstances, it 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, and taking into account in particular the length of the applicant's detention, it awards the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
111. The applicant also claimed EUR 200 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
112. The Government noted that the applicant's claim was unsubstantiated.
113. The Court reiterates that only such costs and expenses as were actually and necessarily incurred in connection with the violation or violations found, and are reasonable as to quantum, are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Sahin v. Germany [GC], No. 30943/96, § 105, ECHR 2003-VIII). The Court observes that the applicant did not provide receipts or vouchers to substantiate his expenses. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether the expenses claimed by the applicant were in fact incurred in the amount he claimed and it therefore makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
114. 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 conditions of the applicant's detention in detention facilities Nos. IZ-47/1 and IZ-47/4 in St Petersburg, the excessive length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against him admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
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 § 3 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
5. 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 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the date of the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
