ess of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006). As regards subsequent developments (refurbishment of the cells, opening of a new remand prison, etc.), however positive they might be, they are irrelevant for the assessment of the applicant's complaints raised above.
30. 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 notes that for eleven months the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as many other inmates. That fact 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 fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
31. The Court finds, accordingly, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, because the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention in facility No. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
32. 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
33. The applicant claimed 300,000 roubles (RUB) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. At the moment when the claim was made, that amount corresponded to approximately 8,650 euro (EUR).
34. The Government considered the applicant's claim excessive and opined that, should the Court find a violation of the applicant's rights, the acknowledgment of a violation would constitute adequate just satisfaction.
35. The Court observes that it found a serious violation of the applicant's rights in the present case. The applicant spent eleven months in inhuman and degrading conditions. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court finds the applicant reasonable and awards him EUR 8,650 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
36. The applicant also claimed compensation for translation costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court (RUB 43,804, about EUR 1,260 at the time) and compensation of the lawyer's fees (RUB 27,000, about EUR 780). He produced invoices from the translator.
37. The Government considered that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the amount of RUB 27,000 had actually been paid by him to the lawyer. As to the legal costs (translation expenses) they considered them excessive.
38. 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 406 has already been paid to the applicant by way of legal aid. The applicant has failed to submit an agreement with his lawyer or any invoice from her. In such circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to make an award under this head.
39. As to the translation costs, the Court considers that the amount claimed by the applicant is excessive. Deciding on an equitable basis and having regard to the details of the claim submitted by the app
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
