courts should hold the State accountable and punish it for the outrageous conduct of its agent, in order to act as a deterrent to future offences, and should thus award him sufficient compensation for the injuries suffered. On 3 April 2003 the Sverdlovskiy District Court dismissed the action, holding that the situation in which the applicant had found himself was not covered by the legal provisions abrogating the State's immunity from tort liability and establishing the conditions for suits and claims against the State for damage caused by unlawful acts or omissions of its agencies and officials. In addition, the District Court found that the applicant had already made use of his right to obtain redress by successfully introducing the tort action against the direct tortfeasor, Mr N. (see paragraph 24 of the judgment). On 16 July 2003 the Krasnodar Regional Court, having examined the applicant's appeal, confirmed the overall correctness of the District Court's decision to dismiss the action. However, the Regional Court amended the District Court's reasoning by setting aside its conclusion as to the inapplicability of the legal provisions concerning the State's liability, while endorsing the finding that the applicant had already benefited from the right to claim reparation of the damage from the perpetrator of the injury (see paragraph 25 of the judgment).
7. Russian law undoubtedly afforded the applicant the possibility of bringing judicial proceedings to claim compensation for the damage suffered as a result of his ill-treatment. The applicant availed himself of that possibility by lodging an action against the direct tortfeasor (see paragraph 19 of the judgment) and subsequently by bringing a claim against various State agencies seeking compensation for the damage he had sustained on account of the ill-treatment (see paragraph 23 of the judgment). It follows that in the present case it is absolutely necessary to verify whether the way in which the domestic law was interpreted and applied by the domestic courts in the process of implementation of the compensatory remedy produced consequences that are consistent with the Convention principles, as interpreted in the light of the Court's case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (No. 1) [GC], No. 36813/97, §§ 187 - 191, ECHR 2006-V).
8. We would like to reiterate the applicant's argument that he lodged the second action because he considered that the amount of compensation to be paid by Mr N. was insufficient, unreasonable and, in any event, unenforceable (see paragraph 22 of the judgment). In this connection we note that the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see {Conka} v. Belgium, No. 51564/99, § 75, ECHR 2002-I). At the same time, the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see, among other authorities, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A No. 37; Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 87, Series A No. 161; and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 99, Series A No. 201). That also applies to the right enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention. The Court has already held on a number of occasions that the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires that the remedy should be capable of resulting in an award of fair and reasonable damages proportionate to the loss suffered (see Vdovina v. Russia, No. 13458/07, § 29, 18 June 2009; Wasserman v. Russia (No. 2), No. 21071/05, § 49, 10 April 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], No. 64886/01, § 93, ECHR 2006-V, with further references).
9. The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused is therefore one of the issues to be considered. We are mindful of the fact that the task of estimating da
> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24 25 ... 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
