Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.12.2009 «Дело Шилбергс (Shilbergs) против России» [англ.]

the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. ..."
(i) Principles established under the Court's case-law
67. The Court summarised the principles governing the assessment of an applicant's victim status in paragraphs 178 - 192 of its judgment in the case of Scordino v. Italy (No. 1) ([GC], No. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-V). In so far as relevant to the case under consideration, they are:
(a) in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention;
(b) a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention;
(c) the applicant's ability to claim to be a victim will depend on the redress which the domestic remedy will have given him or her;
(d) the principle of subsidiarity does not mean renouncing all supervision of the result obtained from using domestic remedies, otherwise the rights guaranteed by the Convention would be devoid of any substance. In that connection, it should be reiterated that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory rights but rights that are practical and effective.
(ii) Application of the foregoing principles
68. It follows from the foregoing principles that the Court must verify whether the authorities acknowledged, at least in substance, that there had been a violation of a right protected by the Convention, and whether the redress can be considered appropriate and sufficient (see Scordino (No. 1), cited above, § 193).
(alpha) The finding of a violation
69. The Court does not lose sight of the fact that the domestic courts did not expressly acknowledge that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected as a result of his detention in the Neman town temporary detention unit had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They found that various aspects of the applicant's detention, having been in breach of the domestic legal requirements, had caused the applicant "physical and mental suffering" (see paragraph 26 above). However, the Court is prepared to accept that by awarding the applicant compensation the Russian courts in substance acknowledged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention.
(beta) The characteristics of the redress
70. The next issue which needs to be determined by the Court is whether the compensation awarded to the applicant amounted to sufficient redress.
71. On this point, the Court notes that the applicant's claims against the detention unit management and the Treasury were allowed in part. The domestic courts awarded him RUB 1,500, noting that in assessing the amount of the compensation they had taken into account various aspects, including the responsibility of the unit management for the suffering caused to the applicant and the insufficiency of funds which had prevented the management from providing the applicant with appropriate conditions of detention. It may thus be concluded that the applicant received at least partial compensation for the treatment he had suffered.
72. In this connection the Court reiterates that the question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is an important issue. The Court has already had occasion to indicate that an applicant's victim status may depend on the level of compensati



> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 23 24 25

	Поделиться:	Tweet