Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Павленко (Pavlenko) против России» [англ.]

nt 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 were reasonable as to quantum. Regard being had to the information in its possession, the above criteria and the fact that a sum of EUR 850 was already paid by way of the legal aid under Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,600 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

C. Default interest

131. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on 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 complaints concerning the alleged violations at the pre-trial stage of the criminal proceedings; the conditions of the applicant's detention from 7 to 27 June 2002, and the alleged lack of effective remedies admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention;
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 and EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, both sums 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 amounts 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 1 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Andre} WAMPACH
Deputy Registrar





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

C.L.R.

A.M.W.

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MALINVERNI

(Translation)

In paragraph 127 the judgment states that "as regards the findings under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) 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 I have explained on many occasions, either alone or together with other judges, in particular Judge Spielmann <*>, I would very much have liked this principle, on account of its importance, to have been reflected in the operative part of the judgment.
--------------------------------
<*> See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (No. 41461/02, 24 July 2008)



> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22

	Поделиться:	Tweet