Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело Максимов (Maksimov) против России» [англ.]

le.
99. 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

1. Declares unanimously the complaint concerning the absence of an effective remedy for the applicant's complaint about his ill-treatment on 24 April 2000, the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant on 19 December 2001 and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into this alleged incident of ill-treatment admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
3. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb;
4. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb;
5. Holds by five votes to two
(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 9,000 (nine thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 March 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 joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Spielmann and Malinverni is annexed to this judgment.

C.L.R.

A.M.W.

JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES
SPIELMANN AND MALINVERNI

1. We voted against points 2 and 5 of the operative part because in our view Article 13 of the Convention has been violated.
2. We would like to observe from the outset that it is for the States, through their national courts in the first place, to address violations of Convention rights at the domestic level according to the criteria adopted by the Court. This principle - the principle of subsidiarity - was recently reaffirmed at the Interlaken conference. Indeed, the Interlaken Declaration of 19 February 2010 reiterated "the obligation of the States Parties to ensure that the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention are fully secured at the national level", called for "a strengthening of the principle of subsidiarity" and stressed that "this principle implies a shared responsibility between the States Parties and the Court" (point 2 of the preamble to the Declaration). Moreover, it recalled that "it is first and foremost the responsibility of the States Parties to guarantee the application and implementation of the Convention", and consequently called upon the States Parties "to commit themselves to [inter alia] ensuring... that any person with an arguable claim that their rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention have been violated has available to them an effective remedy before a national authority providing adequate redress where appropriate" (point B. 4. (d) of the Declaration).
3. In our view, the Court should develop its interpretation of Article 13 by requiring that an effective remedy include an examination based on criteria set out by the Court



> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet