te agents. The applicant did not provide a sufficiently clear and detailed account of the alleged physical ill-treatment on each relevant date. Nor is there any indication that the applicant was subjected to any form of pressure or coercion that exceeded the minimum threshold of severity required under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court further observes that the applicant's allegation was, however, investigated by the national authorities who refused to initiate criminal proceedings against any public officers. The applicant did not put forward any cogent argument contesting the effectiveness of the domestic inquiries. Thus, the applicant's grievances under Article 3 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible.
93. The Court also reiterates that, according to its constant case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A No. 131). In view of the Court's findings above, the Court does not consider that the applicant had an arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention.
94. 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.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
95. 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
96. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage for each violation established by the Court.
97. The Government considered this claim to be excessive.
98. Making an assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the nature of the violations found, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
99. As regards the findings under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested (see Somogyi v. Italy, No. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and Shulepov, cited above, § 46). The Court notes in this connection that Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court has found a violation of the Convention.
B. Costs and expenses
100. The applicant also claimed 20,000 Russian roubles for his counsel's fees for representing him before the Regional Court, paid apparently by the applicant's sister.
101. The Government contested the claim.
102. 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. It does not appear that the above expenses were related to the violations found or that they were incurred by the applicant or that he was under an enforceable legal or contractual obligation to do so (see Salmanov v. Russia, No. 3522/04, § 98, 31 July 2008). The Court therefore rejects the claim.
C. Default interest
103. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
