Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 «Дело Макаренко (Makarenko) против России» [англ.]

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.

VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

162. 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

163. The applicant claimed 529,500 US dollars (USD) in respect of pecuniary damage. He submitted that that sum represented capital losses accrued during his detention. The applicant argued that he had not been able to work during the criminal proceedings, his property and money had been seized by the investigating authorities during a search of his house, his relatives had borne the expenses of his detention and conviction, they had also paid for the services of bodyguards to protect the applicant's life and the lives of his family members, and the applicant's health had significantly deteriorated as a result of his detention and conviction. He further claimed USD 50,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
164. The Government submitted that the applicant's claims were unsubstantiated and excessive. They further contested the existence of a causal link between the alleged violation and the pecuniary loss alleged by the applicant, as the decision to prefer criminal charges against the applicant was not the subject of the Court' s review in the present case.
165. The Court shares the Government's view that there is no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage claimed (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 102, 2 March 2006). Furthermore, the applicant did not submit documents confirming expenses which he allegedly accrued. Consequently the Court finds no reason to award the applicant any sum under this head.
166. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court observes that it has found a combination of violations in the present case. The Court accepts that the applicant suffered humiliation and distress because of the excessive length of his detention on remand and the domestic authorities' failure to examine effectively and/or speedily his applications for release and appeals against detention orders. In these circumstances, it considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, and taking into account in particular, the length of the applicant's detention, it awards the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

167. The applicant also claimed USD 100,067,578 for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court, of which USD 23,842 represented postal expenses, office supplies and expenses for the preparation of documents and USD 100,043,736 legal fees and interest on a part of the legal fees which the applicant had been unable to pay to his lawyers due to insolvency. The applicant relied on contracts with his lawyers, including Ms Liptser, and receipts showing that he had paid 50,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to Ms Liptser and RUB 27,150 to two other lawyers who had represented the applicant in the domestic proceedings.
168. The Government submitted that the applicant had only been able to substantiate his claim of RUB 50,000 which he had paid to Ms Liptser for her assistance with lodging the application before this Court.
169. The Court reiterates that only su

> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 27