rrest and the charges against him; his detention had been unlawful and unreasonable; he had been questioned in the absence of a lawyer and forced to incriminate himself; the trial had been held in camera and had been unfair; the judge in the proceedings which had ended with the final decision of 22 November 2002 had been partial and had refused to summon him to the appeal hearing; the wardens had seized his documents after trial; he had been allowed to see his mother only twice after his arrest.
90. However, having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant's complaints are unsubstantiated and 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
91. 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
92. The applicant claimed 1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of the alleged violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.
93. The Government contested his claims as excessive and submitted that a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient redress.
94. The Court notes that it has found in the present case a violation of Article 3 on account of the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant's detention at the police station and in the remand centre for more than two years. It considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. At the same time, the amount claimed by the applicant appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 10,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.
B. Costs and expenses
95. The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer with the International Protection Centre in Moscow. She submitted that she had represented the applicant before the Court pro bono because he was serving his sentence and had no means to pay for her services and asked the Court to award her legal costs without specifying a particular amount.
96. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claims for legal costs and invited the Court to dismiss them.
97. The Court observes that the applicant in the present case was granted legal aid under Rules 91 and 92 of the Rules of Court and that he did not furnish any documents to show that he had actually incurred any expenses under this head. Therefore, regard being had to the information in its possession, the Court rejects the applicant's claim for costs and expenses (see Knyazev v. Russia, No. 25948/05, §§ 124 - 126, 8 November 2007).
C. Default interest
98. 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 conditions of the applicant's detention at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station in Moscow and the conditions of detention in remand centre IZ/77-1 in Moscow admissible and the remainde
> 1 2 3 ... 33 34 35
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
