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

63. The Court notes that the prosecutor's decision in respect of the applicant's complaint about his alleged ill-treatment was given on 23 October 2003, that is, more than six months before he lodged his application with the Court. It follows that this complaint has been brought out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. The complaint about the deterioration of the applicant's parents' quality of life is inadmissible ratione personae because the applicant is not the victim of the alleged violation of Article 3.
64. The Court lastly observes that the newspaper publications did not mention the applicant by name or reveal his photograph and did not contain any statements by a public official as to his guilt (see {Butkevicius} v. Lithuania, No. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II). Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

65. 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

66. The applicant claimed 140,050 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage in connection with his unlawful detention on remand.
67. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was excessive.
68. The Court likewise considers that the applicant's claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage are excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 9,000 under his head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

69. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,680 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, representing 28 hours' work by his counsel at the rate of EUR 60 per hour.
70. The Government claimed that the legal services had been rendered pro bono and should not give rise to compensation.
71. 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

72. 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 admissible the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention from 10 April to 4 November 2004, his absence from the hearing on 30 December 2003 and the failure to examine his statement of appeal of 7 June 2004, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 10 April to 4 November 2004;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the applicant's absence from the hearing on 30 December 2003;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure to examine the applicant's appeal against the detention order of 31 May 2004;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the appl

> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10

0.1331 с