fact that IZ-71/1 was severely overcrowded during his stay there. Being mindful of the objective difficulties experienced by applicants in substantiating their grievances in respect of the conditions of pre-trial detention in Russia, the Court is prepared to accept the above statements as sufficient confirmation of the applicant's point that the overcrowding of cells was a problem for a number of years before, during and after the applicant's detention there.
82. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
83. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The Court finds that the fact that the applicant had to spend two years, two months and three days in the overcrowded cells of the Tula IZ-71/1 was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
84. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in that the Court finds that the applicant's detention was inhuman and degrading within the meaning of that provision.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
85. 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
86. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the criminal proceedings against him and EUR 1,600,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
87. The Government contested these claims as unsubstantiated.
88. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. The Court further notes that the applicant was detained over two years in overcrowded cells in a remand prison and thus indisputably sustained non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated solely by a finding of a violation. Deciding on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 18,000 for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
89. The applicant also claimed EUR 5,700 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
90. The Government contested the applicant's claims.
91. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to 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. Regard being had to the fact that the applicant failed to submit any documents in support of his claims or even specify the exact amounts spent by him in this connection, the Court rejects the applicant's claims under this head.
C. Default interest
92. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the margina
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
