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

ch costs and expenses as were actually and necessarily incurred in connection with the violation or violations found, and are reasonable as to quantum, are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Sahin v. Germany [GC], No. 30943/96, § 105, ECHR 2003-VIII). The Court firstly observes that the applicant did not provide receipts and vouchers to substantiate his expenses for the preparation and sending of the documents. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether the expenses claimed by the applicant were in fact incurred in the amount he claimed and it therefore makes no award under this head.
170. The Court further observes that the applicant was represented by several lawyers in the domestic proceedings, which involved complex issues, inter alia the complaints about the reasons for the applicant's continued detention, and required qualified legal advice. The Court also notes that in 2002 the applicant issued Ms Liptser, a lawyer from the International Protection Centre in Moscow, with authority to represent his interests in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. The counsel acted as the applicant's representative throughout the procedure. It is clear from the length and detail of the pleadings submitted by the applicant that a great deal of work was carried out on his behalf. However, having regard to the documents submitted, the Court considers that the applicant was only able to substantiate a part of his claims for legal fees. The Court therefore awards him EUR 1,730 covering costs under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him on that amount.

C. Default interest

171. 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 concerning the unlawfulness of the applicant's arrest, the excessive length of his detention on remand, the failure of the domestic authorities to examine the applicant's appeal against the decision of 8 October 2003 and his request for release lodged on 24 November 2003 and to decide "speedily" on the lawfulness of his detention after 29 December 2003, the absence of the applicant and his lawyers from the trial hearings on the libel charge and unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the delays in examining the lawfulness of the applicant's detention after 29 December 2003 and the failure to consider the substance of the applicant's appeal against the decision of 8 October 2003 and his request for release lodged on 24 November 2003;
5. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,730 (one thousand seven hundred and thirty euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three mo

> 1 2 3 ... 25 26 27