Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.04.2010 «Дело Слюсарев (Slyusarev) против России» [англ.]





ful in domestic terms. The Government did not explain why the investigator had not returned old glasses when he had learned about the applicant's situation. Finally, the Government did not provide any explanation for the delay of two and half months before the applicant was examined by a specialist doctor or why it took a further two months to have the new glasses made.
44. In such circumstances the Court concludes that the treatment complained of was to a large extent imputable to the authorities. Having regard to the degree of suffering involved in this case, and its duration, the Court concludes that the applicant was subjected to degrading treatment. There was, therefore, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

45. 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."
46. The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, "failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part".
47. In the instant case, on 7 December 2006 the Court invited the applicant to submit his claims for just satisfaction before 9 February 2007. However, the applicant did not submit any such claims. In view of the above, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, {Sirin} v. Turkey, No. 47328/99, §§ 27 - 29, 15 March 2005, and Pravednaya v. Russia, No. 69529/01, §§ 43 - 46, 18 November 2004).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Josep CASADEVALL
President

Santiago QUESADA
Registrar






> 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.152 с