g committed "actions punishable under the Russian criminal law", the Court considers that the Russian Prosecutor General's Office was referring not to the question whether the applicant's guilt had been established by the evidence - which was clearly not for the determination of the prosecutor issuing an extradition order - but to the question whether there were legal grounds for the applicant's extradition (see, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras, cited above, § 44).
151. In such circumstances the Court cannot conclude that the wording of the extradition order amounted to a declaration of the applicant's guilt in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence (see, by contrast, Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 168).
152. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
153. The applicant contended that he had had no effective remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
154. The Government contested the applicant's arguments and claimed that he had had effective domestic remedies as regards his grievances.
155. The applicant maintained his complaint.
156. The Court observes that the complaint made by the applicant under this head has already been examined in the context of Article 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings (see paragraph 114 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 is admissible, there is no need to carry out a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Shaipova and Others v. Russia, No. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], No. 50385/99, §§ 84 - 86, ECHR 2004-XI).
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
157. 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
158. The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage caused by his unlawful detention and the fact that he ran the risk of being ill-treated if extradited.
159. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was unreasonable and suggested that a finding of a violation of the Convention would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
160. The Court notes that it has found a combination of violations in the present case and accepts that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to award the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
161. The applicant claimed 55,000 Russian roubles (RUB, equivalent to EUR 1,240) for his representation by Ms Magomedova at national level. He submitted two invoices confirming that the sum in question had been paid. He further claimed, referring to his lawyers' timesheets, EUR 3,800 for his representation by Ms Magomedova before the Court, as well as EUR 1,600 for his representation by Mr Ryabinina. The timesheets did not indicate the lawyers' ho
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
