hrir and his escape from custody, in respect of which his extradition was being sought (ibid.). Moreover, both the City Court and the Supreme Court specifically emphasised that the issue of the applicant's guilt in respect of the crimes with which he had been charged in Tajikistan could only be assessed by the courts of the requesting country (ibid.).
213. In sum, although the wording employed by the Prosecutor General's Office and the courts may be considered rather unfortunate, the Court is satisfied that those authorities were referring not to the question whether the applicant's guilt had been established by the evidence - which was clearly not the issue to be determined in the extradition proceedings - but to whether there were legal grounds for extraditing the applicant to the requesting country.
214. In the Court's opinion, the same holds true for the phrase in the Prosecutor General Office's letter of 30 December 2009 referred to by the applicant (see paragraph 205 above).
215. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the wording of the extradition order, the ensuing court decisions and the letter of 30 December 2009 did not amount to a declaration of the applicant's guilt in breach of the presumption of innocence (see, by contrast, Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 168).
216. 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.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
217. 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
218. The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
219. The Government submitted that the applicant's claims were excessive. In the alternative, they argued that, should the Court find a breach of the Convention, the finding of a violation would be sufficient.
220. The Court notes that it has found a combination of violations in the present case and accepts that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to award the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
221. The applicant also claimed 90,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately EUR 2,225) in respect of his representation by Mr A. Gaytayev and Ms R. Magomedova in the domestic proceedings, submitting, among other things, copies of the related agreements and invoices confirming that the sum in question had been paid. He further claimed, with reference to Mr A. Gaytayev's and Ms E. Ryabinina's timesheets, EUR 1,800 for his representation by Mr A. Gaytayev before the Court, as well as EUR 2,800 for his representation by Ms E. Ryabinina, each lawyers' hourly rate being set at EUR 100. Lastly, the applicant claimed postal and administrative costs in the amount of EUR 477.
222. The Government submitted that the costs and expenses claimed by the applicant were unnecessary and unreasonable, without providing any further details.
223. 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. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court awards the applicant EUR 6,825 in respect of costs and expens
> 1 2 3 ... 38 39 40
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
