Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Севастьянов (Sevastyanov) против России» [англ.]

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 the complaint concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the proceedings before the appeal instance court;
3. Holds that the respondent State has complied with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention in relation to the confidential nature of the Court's letter of 13 July 2004;
4. Holds that the respondent State has not complied with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention in relation to the delivery of the Court's letter of 13 July 2004;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the following joint concurring opinion of Judges Spielmann and Malinverni is annexed to this judgment.

C.L.R.

S.N.

JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES SPIELMANN AND MALINVERNI

Paragraph 99 of the judgment states: "As regards the findings under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court... reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of the provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested..."
For reasons we have explained on many occasions, either alone or together with other judges, <*> we would very much have liked this principle, on account of its importance, to have been reflected in the operative part of the judgment.
--------------------------------
<*> See for example our joint concurring opinions appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (No. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (No. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (No. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (No. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and {Prezec} v. Croatia (No. 48185/07, 15 October 2009). See also the concurring opinion of Judge Malinverni in Pavlenko v. Russia, (No. 42371/02, 1 April 2010), the concurring opinion of Judge Malinverni, joined by Judges Casadevall, Cabral Barreto, Zagrebelsky and {Popovic} in the case of Cudak v. Lithuania ([GC], No. 15869/02, 23 March 2010), as well as the concurring opinion of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajkovska in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], No. 36391/02, ECHR 2008-...).

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14

0.0424 с