to conclude that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this regard.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
47. Lastly, the applicant alleged a violation of Article 1 of the Convention. He complained under Article 14 of the Convention that the local authorities had refused to use a polygraph test to verify the testimony of the police officers who had detained and questioned him, whereas such tests were regularly applied in Moscow, and under Article 34 of the Convention that for six months he had been unable to communicate with the Court because his representative had been placed in custody.
48. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the events complained of 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.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
49. 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
50. The applicant claimed 90,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
51. The Government considered the applicant's claim excessive. They further submitted that the applicant had failed to justify it or to produce the relevant calculations.
52. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court observes that it has found that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. However, the Court accepts the Government's argument that the particular amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 21,000, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
53. The applicant also claimed, without specifying the amount, reimbursement for the services provided by his representative before the Court.
54. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had actually incurred the costs or expenses in question.
55. 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 accepts the Government's argument that the applicant did not demonstrate that he had indeed incurred any costs and expenses and rejects the applicant's claim.
C. Default interest
56. 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 Article 3 of t
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
