ce, as the Constitutional Court indicated in its relevant decisions (see para. 23). However, the domestic courts did not consider such an option.
66. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the domestic courts, by refusing to grant the applicant leave to appear and make oral submissions at a hearing, deprived him of the opportunity to present his case effectively.
67. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's absence before the domestic courts in the civil proceedings in his case.
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
68. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been refused leave to appear before the courts considering his civil claims on the sole ground of being a detainee.
69. The Court considers that the complaint is, in fact, a restatement of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and does not raise any separate issue. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to its Article 35 § 4.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
70. 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
71. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) or 250,000 roubles (RUB) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
72. The Government considered the applicant's claims excessive and opined that, should the Court find a violation of the applicant's rights, the acknowledgment of a violation would constitute adequate just satisfaction.
73. The Court observes that it found a combination of serious violations of the applicant's rights in the present case. The applicant spent almost eight months in inhuman and degrading conditions and had no effective remedy in respect of his relevant complaint. Nor was he able to present his civil case before the domestic courts. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
74. The applicant also claimed compensation, without specifying the amount and asking for the Court's discretion, for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court.
75. The Government considered that the applicant had not actually asked for compensation of costs and expenses and no award should be made by the Court.
76. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant 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 are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the amount of EUR 850 has already been paid to the applicant by way of legal aid. In such circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
77. 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 inhuman and degrading conditions of the applic
> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
