described the extent of the victim's injuries rather than making any findings as to their origin. Finally, the applicants never identified the garage employees whose attendance they sought to obtain, by name or otherwise.
79. The Court concludes from the above that the alleged inability to question the witnesses Mr B., Ms E., Ms K. or Mr Ku. did not deprive the applicants of a fair trial, as the way in which evidence was dealt with, taken as a whole, was fair. 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.
VI. Other alleged violations of the Convention
80. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicants' complaints as submitted by them. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints 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.
VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
81. 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
82. The first applicant claimed 163,352.02 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the value of the Mercedes car that had been kept by the authorities as real evidence throughout the trial. The applicants also claimed RUB 2,145,396 and RUB 1,560,288 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
83. The Government submitted that the claims had been excessive.
84. The Court notes that the issue of the alleged damage to the first applicant's car was not subject to its examination in this case. Accordingly, it rejects his claim in respect of pecuniary damage.
85. The Court further considers that the applicants' claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage are excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the first applicant EUR 2,400 and the second applicant EUR 9,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
86. The applicants did not file a claim for costs or expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
87. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares admissible the second applicant's complaint concerning his allegedly unlawful detention from 17 April to 15 May 2003 and the first applicant's complaints about the allegedly excessive length of proceedings and the lack of legal representation in the appellate proceedings, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the second applicant's unlawful detention from 17 April to 15 May 2003;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the first applicant;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the lack of legal representation of the first applicant in the a
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
