t does not need to consider further what effect that restriction had on the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see Pishchalnikov, cited above, § 81, and {Ongun} v. Turkey, No. 15737/02, §§ 34 and 35, 23 June 2009).
(iii) Conclusion
119. Thus, even though at the trial the applicant had an opportunity to challenge the evidence against him in adversarial proceedings with the benefit of legal advice, the Court reiterates its foregoing findings concerning the legal assistance in the pre-trial proceedings, and concludes that the shortcomings in respect of the legal assistance at that stage seriously undermined the position of the defence at the trial.
120. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with its paragraph 3 (c).
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
121. The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been beaten up several times by interrogators and cellmates. Lastly, the applicant complained that his prolonged detention in the temporary detention centre and the search and seizure in his flat had been in breach of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention.
122. The Court has examined the remaining complaints as submitted by the applicant. Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 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.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
123. 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
124. The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
125. The Government contested that claim as excessive.
126. Having regard to the nature of the violations found and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
127. As regards the findings under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the Court also 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 that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested (see Somogyi v. Italy, No. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and Bocos-Cuesta v. the Netherlands, No. 54789/00, § 82, 10 November 2005). The Court notes in this connection that Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court has found a violation of the Convention.
B. Costs and expenses
128. The applicant also claimed EUR 51,930 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts, including counsel S.'s fees in the criminal proceedings, and EUR 1,105 for those incurred before the Court, including the fee paid by the applicant's mother for Mr Prokopyev's work, as well as postal, photocopying and translation costs.
129. The Government contested the claims as unreasonable or having no connection to the respective proceedings.
130. According to the Court's case-law, an applica
> 1 2 3 ... 19 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
