Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Гултяева (Gultyayeva) против России» [англ.]

pheld on appeal and became final on 23 May 2001. Thus the overall length of the proceedings at issue was less than fifteen months, during which period the applicant's case was examined at two levels of jurisdiction. The Court does not find such a length of the proceedings excessive within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
199. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the interim seizure of her flat. The Court observes that on 11 March 2002 the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court lifted the seizure of the applicant's flat, following which she waived her relevant court claim at the domestic level. It also does not appear that she has ever attempted to bring court proceedings for compensation for the allegedly unlawful interim seizure of her flat. The applicant therefore failed to exhaust domestic remedies and her relevant complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
200. Lastly, the applicant referred to Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention, stating that her detention had been intended by the authorities as a pressure to force her to admit to the imputed offences. The materials in the Court's possession do not reveal any evidence capable of laying down an arguable basis to the applicant's allegation. It follows that this complaint 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

201. 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

202. The applicant claimed 47,380.79 pounds sterling (GBP, approximately 56,000 euros (EUR)) as compensation for loss of earnings, stating that she was unable to find a job because of her unlawful conviction. The applicant further sought EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage she had suffered as a result of the alleged violation of her rights. Under this latter head she also claimed EUR 20,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by her husband and son.
203. The Government contested those claims, stating that should the Court find any violation of the applicant's rights in the present case, a mere finding of a violation would suffice.
204. The Court cannot discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. It further rejects the applicant's claim submitted on behalf of her family members, as they have never been parties to the proceedings before the Court. As far as the applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage submitted on behalf of herself is concerned, the Court observes that it has found a violation of Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand centre IZ-62/1, her unlawful detention between 25 October and 4 November 2004 and the fact that her continued remand in custody had no relevant and sufficient grounds. The applicant must have suffered anguish and distress as a result of all these circumstances, which cannot be compensated by a mere finding of a violation. Having regard to these considerations, the Court awards the applicant, on an equitable basis, EUR 10,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to her on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

205. The applicant also claimed GBP

> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25 26