Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Ананьин (Ananyin) против России» [англ.]

ention.
116. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the examination of the applicant's appeal of 14 April 2005 did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Accordingly, there has been a violation of that Article.

IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention

117. The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that 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

118. 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

119. The applicant claimed compensation in respect of loss of earnings calculated at the rate of the statutory minimum wage for each month of his detention. He also claimed 1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
120. The Government submitted that the applicant was unemployed at the time of his arrest, therefore his claim for compensation for the loss of earnings had no basis in law. The claim for non-pecuniary damage was excessive. In their opinion, the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
121. The Court observes that the decision to prefer criminal charges against the applicant was not the subject of its review in the present case. There was no causal link between the violations found and the alleged loss of earnings (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, No. 55669/00, § 102, 2 March 2006). The Court therefore rejects the claim for pecuniary damage.
122. The Court further notes that it has found a combination of grievous violations in the present case. The applicant has spent more than six years in custody, in inhuman and degrading conditions. His detention has not been based on sufficient grounds. He was deprived of an effective review of the lawfulness of his continued detention. In these circumstances, the Court 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, the Court awards the applicant EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.

B. Costs and expenses

123. The applicant also claimed reimbursement of his legal fees, without specifying the amount.
124. The Government submitted that the applicant had not produced any documents showing that expenses had been actually incurred.
125. The Court notes that the applicant did not specify the amount of legal fees, nor did he submit any receipts or other vouchers on the basis of which such amount could be established. Accordingly, the Court does not make any award under this head.

C. Default interest

126. 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 complaint concerning the inhuman conditions and excessive length of the applicant's detention and the alleged failure to examine speedily the appeal of 14 A

> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18