Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Штейн (Shteyn (Stein)) против России» [англ.]

me" requirement has not been complied with. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

VI. Other alleged violations of the Convention

150. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the search of his flat had been unlawful. The Court notes, however, that there is no indication that the applicant challenged the search order in the national courts. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
151. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the criminal proceedings, alleging in particular that he had not been given adequate time to study the case and that counsel F. had been removed from the proceedings unlawfully. The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints 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.
152. Lastly, the applicant complained that he had been questioned in an intimidating environment and under threats of violence from police officers and that his defence rights had not been respected during detention hearings. The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by him. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints 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.

VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

153. 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

154. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage representing loss of earnings for the period of detention pending investigation and trial. He also claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of the conditions of his detention.
155. The Government submitted that the applicant should have lodged before the national courts a claim under Article 133 of the CCrP for compensation on account of unlawful detention and prosecution. He should have also claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage under Article 151 of the Civil Code.
156. The Court does not have to examine the Government's objection and whether there is a direct causal link between the violations found and the alleged pecuniary damage because the applicant's pecuniary claim is in any event unsubstantiated. The Court therefore rejects this claim.
157. On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained stress and frustration as a result of the violations found. It has not been established that Russian law allowed or allows reparation, even partial, in relation to those violations (see Benediktov, cited above, § 29, and Korshunov v. Russia, No. 38971/06, §§ 59 - 63, 25 October 2007). Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

158. The applicant also claimed a lump sum of EUR 50,000 for the costs and expenses

> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26