Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Анатолий Тарасов (Anatoliy Tarasov) против России» [англ.]

t they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

74. 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

75. The applicant claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, without specifying its amount.
76. The Government submitted that the applicant's claims should be dismissed because he had failed to indicate either the grounds for the compensation sought or the particular amount under each head of his claims. They also stressed that his claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage had apparently related to his mental and emotional suffering as a result of his criminal prosecution as such, and invited the Court to dismiss them. Lastly, they considered that, should the Court find a violation of any Convention provision, a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
77. Having regard to the applicant's observations, the Court does not agree with the Government that his claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage relate solely to the fact of his criminal prosecution. It accepts that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration resulting from the violation of his right to a fair trial and the right to respect for the correspondence and considers that they cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of violation of the relevant Convention provisions. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

B. Costs and expenses

78. The applicant also claimed EUR 250 for photocopying of the documents for the proceedings before the Court.
79. The Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
80. 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. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court finds that the applicant failed to substantiate his claims and therefore dismisses them.

C. Default interest

81. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention concerning, respectively, the unfairness of the supervisory review proceedings and the censorship of the Court's letter admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unfairness of the supervisory review proceedings;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the censorship of the Court's letter;
4. Holds that the respondent State has not failed to comply with their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the applicant's alleged intimidation;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14