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

pecuniary damage in an amount that corresponded to the documents submitted by him in support of the claim.
146. Turning now to non-pecuniary damage, the Court is unable to conclude whether the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant could have been considered sufficient in domestic terms. The parties did not produce any relevant information in this regard. However, the Court's task in the present case is not to review the general practice of the domestic courts in awarding compensation for ill-treatment at the hands of the police and not to set certain monetary figures which would satisfy the requirements of "adequate and sufficient redress" but to determine, in the circumstances of the case, whether the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant was such as to deprive him of "victim status" in view of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention pertaining to his ill-treatment by police officers of Dolgorukovskoe police station.
147. The Court considers that the duration and severity of the ill-treatment and the gravity of the injuries sustained are among the factors to be taken into account in assessing whether the domestic award could be regarded as adequate and sufficient redress. It reiterates in this respect its previous finding that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected amounted to torture, given its length and intensity and the particularly serious health damage caused by it (see paragraphs 125 and 126 above).
148. The Court is mindful that the task of making an estimate of damages to be awarded is a difficult one. It is especially difficult in a case where personal suffering, whether physical or mental, is the subject of the claim. There is no standard by which pain and suffering, physical discomfort and mental distress and anguish can be measured in monetary terms. The Court does not doubt that the domestic courts in the present case, with every desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant as a result of the ill-treatment (see Shilbergs, cited above, § 76, and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), No. 34368/02, 25 November 2004). However, it cannot overlook the fact that the amount of EUR 12,500 awarded for the prolonged and extremely cruel torture resulting in very serious and irreversible damage to the applicant's health was substantially lower than what it generally awards in comparable Russian cases (see, for example, Mikheyev, cited above, § 163, and Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, No. 839/02, § 135, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)). That factor in itself leads to a result that is manifestly unreasonable having regard to the Court's case-law. The Court will return to this matter in the context of Article 41 (see paragraphs 180 and 181 below).
149. In view of the above considerations, the Court finds that the compensation awarded to the applicant did not constitute sufficient redress, taking into account the absence of a reasonable relationship of proportionality between its amount and the circumstances of the case.
(c) Conclusion
150. The Court concludes that, given that the investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective and the compensation awarded to him was insufficient, he may still claim to be a "victim" of a breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention on account of his ill-treatment by police officers of Dolgorukovskoe police station. The Court further finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs.

III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the use force on 27 June 2002

151. The applicant complained that on 27 June 2002 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and



> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet