able time. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 22,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
170. The applicant also claimed 15,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in postal, photocopying and translation expenses.
171. The Government argued that the costs and expenses allegedly incurred by the applicant had not been justified in the full amount by relevant receipts. In any event, they had not been necessary and were not reasonable as to quantum.
172. 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 information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 300 covering costs under all heads for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
C. Default interest
173. 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. Joins to the merits the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the conditions of the applicant's detention and rejects it;
2. Declares admissible
(a) the complaint under Article 3 concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don from 11 February 2002 to 23 April 2005 and conditions of his confinement at the Rostov Regional Court;
(b) the complaint under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the allegedly appalling conditions of the applicant's pre-trial detention;
(c) the complaint under Article 5 § 1 concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant's detention from 26 June 2003 to 17 May 2004;
(d) the complaint under Article 5 § 3 concerning the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention;
(e) the complaint under Article 5 § 4 concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the applicant's complaint against the detention order of 19 February 2004;
(f) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant;
(g) the complaint under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time;
and inadmissible the remainder of the application;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to complain about the conditions of his detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don from 11 February 2002 to 23 April 2005;
5. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's confinement at the Rostov Regional Court;
6. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 26 June 2003 to 17 May 2004;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
8. Holds that there has been a violation
> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
