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

ul conviction, the unlawful institution of criminal proceedings against him, his unlawful detention on remand, the unlawful application of a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence or the unlawful imposition of an administrative sanction such as arrest or correctional works should be compensated in full, irrespective of the guilt of the officials of the [police], investigating, prosecuting or judicial authorities, in a procedure established by law and out of the funds of the Treasury of the Russian Federation or, if prescribed by law, the funds of the treasury of the constituent element of the Russian Federation or the municipal entity.
Compensation for damage caused to an individual or a legal entity as a result of the unlawful actions of the [police], investigating or prosecution authorities which did not produce any of the consequences described in paragraph 1 of [Article 1070] should be awarded on the basis of and in line with the procedure established by Article 1069 of [the Russian Civil Code]...
The legal relations between claimants and defendants do not fall within the ambit of Article 1070.
Therefore, [the court] dismisses [the claimant's] claims that the actions (inactions) of the authorities of the Yemelyanovskiy district and Krasnoyarsk regional police departments and the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation were unlawful.
By virtue of Article 151 of the Russian Civil Code a court may order perpetrators to pay monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage (psychological and physical suffering) to individuals who sustained such damage through actions which violated their personal non-pecuniary rights or otherwise encroached on their non-pecuniary interests, as well as in other cases envisaged by a federal law.
Article 150 of the Russian Civil Code lists life, health, human dignity, personal safety... among those non-pecuniary interests.
No compensation should be awarded for non-pecuniary damage because, by virtue of the judgment of the Yemelyanovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, the applicant was awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage to be paid by Mr N., the direct tortfeasor.
The present judgment has not established responsibility on the part of any officials in causing damage to [the applicant].
In such circumstances the court considers [the claimant's] claims manifestly ill-founded and dismisses them in full."
25. On 16 July 2003 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment, finding that:
"...in view of the fact that [the applicant] and [his daughter] made use of their right and lodged a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage by the direct tortfeasor and that their claims were allowed by the court in the course of the examination of the criminal case; that compensation for non-pecuniary damage constitutes one-off redress; and that dual compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the same actions of the person concerned is impossible, the [District] court lawfully dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage in connection with the unlawful actions of Mr N."

C. Car hijacking in 2001

26. On 2 August 2001 the applicant's car was stolen. On the same day two individuals were arrested and charged with theft. The car was returned to the applicant. On 28 May 2002 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, at final instance, found the individuals guilty of the unlawful removal of a car without intent to steal it, acquitted them of a charge of theft and sentenced them to two years' probation.

D. Alleged ill-treatment in 2001

1. Events on 19 December 2001

27. According to the applicant, on 19 December 2001 two police officers, M. and D., stopped him in the street and attempted to carry out

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 25 26 27