Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Губин (Gubin) против России» [англ.]

72. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
73. The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations should not give rise to an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In any event, they considered the applicant's claims excessive and suggested that the acknowledgment of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
74. The Court accepts that the applicant suffered humiliation and distress because of the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention, the absence of an effective remedy in respect of his complaints about those conditions, and the inability to be present or represented before the appeal court carrying out the review of the lawfulness of his detention. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 11,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

75. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,520 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He noted that this amount would cover the time his representative had spent working on the case. In particular, she had dedicated twenty-two hours to studying the material in the case-file and sixteen hours to drafting the observations in response to those submitted by the Government.
76. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had actually and necessarily incurred any costs and expenses in the proceedings before the Court.
77. 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, the amount of EUR 850 has already been paid to the applicant by way of legal aid. In such circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to make an award under this head.

C. Default interest

78. 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

1. Decides unanimously to join to the merits the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's complaint about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention, and rejects it;
2. Declares unanimously the complaints concerning the conditions of the applicant's pre-trial detention in remand prison No. 77/1 in Moscow, the absence of an effective remedy in respect of his complaints about those conditions, and his inability to participate in the appeal hearing of 3 November 2003 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the absence of an effective remedy in respect of the applicant's complaint about the conditions of his detention;
4. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prison No. 77/1 in Moscow;
5. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
6. Holds by six votes to one
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 11,800 (eleven thousand and eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at th



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11

	Поделиться:	Tweet