Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2010 «Дело Борис Попов (Boris Popov) против России» [англ.]

kyan.

V. Other alleged violations of the Convention

116. The applicant also complained under Article 34 of the Convention about the delays in handing over the Court's letters to him, preventing him from complying with the time-limits set by the Court; the prison staff's refusals to dispatch his letters to the Court; the non-delivery of one letter in 2009 and pressure allegedly put on him. He also complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had not been informed of any charges against him after the arrest; that he had not been brought before a judge for a review of his detention. He alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long and unfair, in particular because the courts had not summoned his witnesses. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the search of his home had been unlawful. Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention of the absence of effective remedies and of discrimination against him.
117. The Court has examined the remaining complaints, as submitted by the applicant. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they 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 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

118. 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

119. The applicant claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
120. The Government contested this claim.
121. Having regard to the nature of the violations found and making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

122. The applicant claimed reimbursement of his costs and expenses, leaving the amount to be awarded to the Court's discretion.
123. The Government contested the claim.
124. 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 were reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes that that the applicant was granted legal aid under Rule 92 of the Rules of Court. In the absence of any specific claim and any documentary proof, the Court dismisses the claim under this head.

C. Default interest

125. 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 the complaints concerning the applicant's handcuffing, the lawfulness of his detention, the lack of an enforceable right to compensation and the right to respect for correspondence with his representative;
2. Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a viol



> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet