Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Губкин (Gubkin) против России» [англ.]

is no 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

175. 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

176. The applicant claimed 63,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
177. The Government considered that this claim was excessive and that the finding of a violation would constitute adequate just satisfaction.
178. The Court notes that it has found a combination of serious violations in the present case. The applicant spent almost seven years in custody, in inhuman and degrading conditions. His detention was not based on sufficient grounds; it was also excessively long and partly unlawful. He was denied the right to an effective review of his continued detention and the right to a trial within a reasonable time. 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 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.

B. Costs and expenses

179. The applicant claimed a total of EUR 1,000 in postal, photocopying, typing and translating expenses.
180. The Government argued that the costs and expenses allegedly incurred by the applicant had not been necessary and reasonable as to quantum.
181. The Court notes, firstly, that the applicant was granted EUR 850 in legal aid for his representation by Ms L. Rusakova. Having regard to the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant did not justify having incurred any expenses exceeding that amount. Accordingly, it makes no award in respect of costs and expenses.

C. Default interest

182. 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 admissible
(a) the complaint under Article 3 concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don;
(b) the complaint under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the allegedly appalling conditions of the applicant's detention;
(c) the complaint under Article 5 § 1 concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant's detention from 12 February 2002 to 17 May 2004;
(d) the complaint under Article 5 § 3 concerning the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention;
(e) the complaint under Article 5 § 4 concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the applicant's detention;
(f) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant;
(g) the complaint under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time;
and inadmissible the remainder of the application;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in detentio

> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26