taken from three experts. However, despite these arguments, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4. In the Samy v. the Netherlands case (No. 36499/97, decision of 4 December 2001) concerning the detention of aliens for the purposes of expulsion, the Court found that a period of twenty-five days was compatible with Article 5 § 4. By contrast, in the Rehbock v. Slovenia case (No. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII), the Court found that the application for release had been examined twenty-three days after it had been introduced before the first-instance court, and that that was not a "speedy" examination as required by Article 5 § 4. A delay of seventeen days has also been declared incompatible with this provision (see Kadem v. Malta, No. 55263/00, § 43, 9 January 2003).
53. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that it took the first-instance court twenty-four days to examine the application for release. This delay cannot be explained by the complexity of the case: the court's ruling on the application for release was very short and did not address most of the arguments raised by the defence. The Government did not refer to any factors which might account for the delay. Furthermore, it took the Moscow Regional Court another thirty days to examine the appeal (if calculated from the date when the appeal was lodged). For want of any explanation from the Government, this period by itself raises an issue under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Lebedev, cited above, §§ 97 and 102). Finally, the Court notes that it took the domestic authorities over seven and a half months to notify the applicant of the decision taken.
54. The Court concludes, having regard to the overall duration of the proceedings in the present case, that the review of the application for release was unduly delayed. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on that account.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
55. 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
56. Under the head of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed 5,000 US dollars - the amount allegedly taken from him by police officers M. and E. after his arrest in 2001. He further claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the alleged ill-treatment, unjust criminal prosecution and unlawful detention.
57. The Government considered those claims irrelevant to the Court's findings on admissibility and, in any event, unsubstantiated and excessive.
58. The Court notes that it found most of the applicant's allegations unfounded or inadmissible on formal grounds. It found a violation of the applicant's Convention rights solely under the head of excessive length of bail proceedings (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention). In the light of the above, the amounts claimed by the applicant are irrelevant to the violation found by the Court and in any event excessive. Ruling on an equitable basis, and in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court awards the applicant EUR 600 (six hundred euros) under the head of non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
59. The applicant claimed EUR 4,700 for legal costs incurred in the Strasbourg proceedings and 23,386 Russian Roubles (RUR) for postal expenses and translation costs. He submitted documents supporting those claims.
60. The Government considered that the claims were excessive and unsubstantiated.
61. The Court reiterates that, according to
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
