Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело Максимов (Maksimov) против России» [англ.]

mages to be awarded is a difficult one. It is especially difficult in a case where personal suffering, whether physical or mental, is the subject of the claim. There is no standard by which pain and suffering, physical discomfort and mental distress and anguish can be measured in terms of money. However, we cannot overlook the fact that the amount of RUB 10,000 awarded in the circumstances of the case appears to be disproportionately low, particularly if compared to what the Court generally awards in similar Russian cases (see, for example, Barabanshchikov v. Russia, No. 36220/02, § 70, 8 January 2009, and Nadrosov v. Russia, No. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008). <*>
--------------------------------
<*> In the majority of Russian cases (see cases cited in the paragraph) where a violation of Article 3 on account of inhuman treatment was found the Court's award was approximately EUR 10,000 - 15,000.

10. In this connection we reiterate that, while emphasising the importance of a reasonable amount of just satisfaction being offered by the domestic system for the remedy in question to be considered effective under the Convention, the Court has held on a number of occasions that a wider margin of appreciation is left to the domestic courts in assessing the amount of compensation to be paid in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and consonant with the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella, cited above, § 80). The Court has also accepted that, in some cases, the alleged violation of the Convention right may result in minimal non-pecuniary damage or no non-pecuniary damage at all. However, in such cases the domestic courts will have to justify their decision by giving sufficient reasons (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 203 - 204). One of the purposes of a reasoned decision is to demonstrate to the parties that their claims have been given due consideration (see, mutatis mutandis, Suominen v. Finland, No. 37801/97, § 37, 1 July 2003). The importance of Article 13 for preserving the subsidiary nature of the Convention system must be stressed in that individuals' complaints must be adequately addressed in the first place within the national legal system (see {Conka}, cited above, § 84, and {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 155, ECHR 2000-XI).
11. Therefore, the main issue to be considered by the Court is the domestic courts' justification for the award they made in the applicant's case. In this regard we observe that the district and regional courts did not rely on any reasons justifying the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant. It is not apparent from the domestic judgments what issues the courts took into account, what domestic standards on compensation they used or what method of calculation they employed for determining the amount of compensation. The Government did not provide the Court with any evidence demonstrating the nature of the test applied by the domestic courts in assessing the applicant's claims and showing that it was based on Convention principles and coincided with the Court's own approach. There was also no explanation for the domestic courts' refusal to examine the merits of the applicant's claim for compensation for health damage resulting from his ill-treatment. We are mindful of the fact that the lack of reasoning by the domestic courts may demonstrate the existence of a substantial degree of uncertainty and ambiguity as to the exact status, scope and content of the right to obtain redress for a violation of Article 3 guarantees and the manner in which this right operated in practice. In these circumstances we harbour doubts as to whether the applicant had an effective opportunity to make before the domestic courts his Convention points regarding his rights not to

> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25 26 ... 27