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

4 of the Convention.

V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

69. 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

70. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
71. The Government considered the amount claimed to be excessive.
72. The Court considers that its finding that the applicant's extradition to Colombia, if carried out, would breach Article 3 of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction (see Saadi, cited above, § 188).

B. Costs and expenses

73. The applicant claimed reimbursement of EUR 160,000 for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before domestic authorities and before this Court. He submitted a note stipulating that Mr D. Yampolskiy had received in fees 2,401,180 Russian roubles (approximately EUR 53,450) and a note stating that Mr M. Tzivin had received 125,000 United States dollars and EUR 60,000 in fees for fees of four attorneys, travel costs, translation costs and advisors' fees. No further documents justifying the costs and expenses claims were submitted.
74. The Government questioned the reasonableness and justification of the expenses claimed.
75. The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nielsen and Johnson v. Norway [GC], No. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII). It observes that the expenses allegedly incurred by the applicant in connection with the Strasbourg proceedings were not itemised or supported by any documentary evidence except for two notes of a general nature. In the absence of any itemised bill it is difficult to assess the reasonableness and necessity of the costs made by the applicant. In such circumstances the Court dismisses the applicant's claims under this head in total.

VI. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court

76. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the present judgment will not become final until (a) the parties declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or (b) three months after the date of the judgment, if reference of the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or (c) the Panel of the Grand Chamber rejects any request to refer under Article 43 of the Convention.
77. It considers that the indication made to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see paragraph 3 above) must continue in force until the present judgment becomes final or until the Panel of the Grand Chamber of the Court accepts any request by one or both of the parties to refer the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the Convention (see F.H. v. Sweden, No. 32621/06, § 107, 20 January 2009).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

1. Declares unanimously the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, as well as the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding flagrant denial of justice in Colombia admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds by five votes to two that implementation of the extradition order against the applicant would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds by five votes to two that it is not necessary to examine



> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 ... 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet