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

itals so as to investigate the possibility of the radical treatment outside the penitentiary system. All the hospitals they contacted refused to accept the applicant on account of their being ill-equipped to conduct the required kind of surgery.
83. The Court thus accepts that the authorities took steps aimed at providing the applicant with radical treatment outside the penitentiary system. However, in view of the particular circumstances of the present case, it finds that those measures were not carried out with sufficient expedition. Taking into account the particularly grave and complex nature of the applicant's condition, the authorities should have been mindful of the danger of it becoming irreversible due to the delay in radical treatment. Therefore, they ought to have started to investigate the possibility of treatment in a civilian hospital shortly after having received the recommendation for such treatment rather than awaiting for more than a year the outcome of the examination by the SMK.
84. The Court thus finds that, in the special circumstances of the present case, the authorities did not take sufficient measures to provide the applicant with adequate medical assistance.
85. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

86. 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

87. The applicant claimed 75,000 euros (EUR) as compensation for the cost of his future medical treatment as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He submitted neither calculations nor documents in support of his claim for compensation of pecuniary damage. He did not specify the amounts claimed in respect of each type of damages either.
88. The Government argued that the claim for compensation of pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated and that the amount claimed for compensation of non-pecuniary damage was not specified.
89. As to the pecuniary damage allegedly caused, the Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (see {Barbera, Messegue} and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (former Article 50), Series A No. 285-C, §§ 16 - 20; see also Berktay v. Turkey, No. 22493/93, § 215, 1 March 2001). Furthermore, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, "failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part". The Court notes that the applicant submitted no calculations, let alone documents, to support his claim for pecuniary damage. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the claim in this part.
90. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court recalls that it found that the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention had been violated on account of the failure to provide him with adequate medical treatment. That fact indisputably caused him physical and mental suffering. The Court thus accepts that he has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 18,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

91. The applicant has made no claim for the compensation of costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under this head.

C. Default interest

9

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13