to the sole question as to whether there had been exceptional circumstances justifying the penalty below the statutory minimum. The application of the Amnesty Act to the applicant was not called into question. Accordingly the Court has to assess whether the reopening of the case could be justified solely on grounds of the allegedly wrongful application of the clause permitting a penalty "below the statutory minimum".
29. The Court observes that the supervisory review court had to examine exactly the same argument that had already been put before the court of appeal and dismissed. The Court has previously held that a review of a final and binding judgment should not be granted merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing and a fresh determination of the case, but rather to correct judicial errors and miscarriages of justice (see, Radchikov, cited above, §§ 49 - 52). In the instant case, the supervisory instance allowed a rehearing of precisely the same legal point, which in the light of the above case-law cannot be considered sufficient to outweigh the binding force of a final judgment.
30. It follows that the criminal proceedings against the applicant, taken as a whole, did not satisfy the requirements of a "fair hearing".
31. Therefore, the Court finds a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It finds that the applicant's complaints raise no separate issue under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see Nikitin, cited above, § 46, and Radchikov, cited above, § 55).
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
32. 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
33. The applicant requested the Court to award him 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for pecuniary damage and RUB 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
34. The Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated and considered that any finding by the Court of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.
35. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration as a result of the reopening of his criminal case following the supervisory review. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. The court rejects the claim for pecuniary damage because the applicant provided no supporting documents for his claims.
B. Costs and expenses
36. The applicant submitted that he had spent RUB 45,000 in legal fees in the domestic proceedings and requested a reimbursement of this sum.
37. The Government contended this claim on the grounds that the applicant had not submitted any supporting documents for his claims.
38. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes that the applicant was granted leave to represent himself before this Court. As regards the expenses incurred during the domestic proceedings, the Court has no grounds to establish that they were incurred in the supervisory review proceedings in order to prevent the violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6. Having also noted that the claims contained no particulars and were not accompanied by any supporting documents, the Court dismisses them under this head.
C. Default interest
39. The Court considers i
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 ... 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
