Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.11.2010 «Дело Султанов (Sultanov) против России» [англ.]

sis for the extradition request and the subsequent decision to extradite him (in contrast to Ismoilov, cited above, § 168; see also Kolesnik v. Russia, No. 26876/08, § 92, 17 June 2010 (not yet final)).
96. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

97. 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

98. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
99. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was excessive and stated that finding a violation of the Convention would be an adequate just satisfaction in the applicant's case.
100. The Court, making an assessment on an equitable basis, awards EUR 15,000 to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

101. Relying on fee agreements and lawyers' time sheets, the applicant claimed 5,137 pounds sterling (GBP) (approximately EUR 6,220) for the work of London-based lawyers Mr W. Bowring and Ms J. Evans together with administrative and translation costs, and EUR 1,200 for the work of Ms E. Ryabinina as his representative before the domestic authorities and the Court and 90,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately EUR 2,360) for the work of Mr A. Gaytayev and Ms R. Magomedova as his representatives before the domestic authorities. The total amount claimed amounted to EUR 9,780.
102. The Government did not dispute the justification for the amounts claimed but stated that they were excessive.
103. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of 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. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 7,500 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.

C. Default interest

104. 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 under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that in the event of the extradition order against the applicant being enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention:
(i) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, for costs and expenses, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of settlement and paid into the bank account in London in



> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet