ion of the applicant's allegation of the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan and only referred in general terms to the assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities (see paragraph 18 above). Consequently, the courts failed to rigorously scrutinise the applicant's claims of the risk of ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan.
112. It should also be noted that the Government did not refer to any provisions of domestic legislation which could have afforded redress in the applicant's situation or had a suspensive effect on his extradition (see, mutatis mutandis, Muminov, cited above §§ 102 - 104).
113. Accordingly, the Court concludes that in the circumstances of the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention because the applicant was not afforded an effective and accessible remedy in relation to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
114. As regards the applicant's complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, in the light of the Court's established case-law stating that the more specific guarantees of Article 5, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements (see Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), No. 55861/00, 9 May 2006) and in view of its above findings of violations of Article 5 of the Convention, the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 in connection with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
115. 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
116. The applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
117. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was excessive.
118. The Court, making an assessment on an equitable basis, awards EUR 25,000 to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage as requested plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
119. Relying on the fee agreements and the lawyers' time sheets, the applicant claimed 5,462 pounds sterling (GBP) (approximately EUR 6,190) for the work of London-based lawyers Mr K. Koroteev and Ms J. Evans together with administrative and translation costs and for the work of Ms E. Ryabinina for his representation before the domestic authorities and the Court.
120. The Government contended that the applicant had not submitted any proof that the payments had actually been made and that the amounts were reasonable.
121. 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 sum of EUR 5,500 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
C. Default interest
122. 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 application admissible;
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 Conven
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
