Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.07.2010 <Дело Каримов (Karimov) против России» [англ.]

ejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

141. 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

142. The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
143. The Government did not dispute the amount claimed.
144. The Court, making an assessment on an equitable basis, awards EUR 13,000 to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

145. Relying on the fee agreements and lawyers' timesheets, the applicant claimed EUR 9,100 (EUR 4,400 and 188,000 Russian roubles (RUB)) for the work of his representatives Mr R. Zilberman and Ms E. Ryabinina in representing him before the domestic authorities and the Court, and EUR 610 for administrative and postal expenses.
146. The Government contended that the applicant had not submitted any proof that the payments had been necessary and reasonable.
147. 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 applicant the sum of EUR 9,000 covering costs under all heads.

C. Default interest

148. 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, Article 5 § 1 in respect of the applicant's detention between 21 and 24 July 2008, Article 5 § 4 and Article 13 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 in respect of the applicant's detention between 21 and 24 July 2008;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there is no need to examine the alleged violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention;
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 13,000 (thirteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros) in respect of the applicant's legal representation, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
8. Dismisses the remainder o



> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22

	Поделиться:	Tweet