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

on awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], No. 64886/01, § 93, ECHR 2006-V, with further references). Whether the amount awarded may be regarded as reasonable, however, falls to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case. These include also the value of the award judged in the light of the ordinary living standards and the general level of incomes in the State concerned and the fact that the remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than an application to the Court (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 206 and 268, and {Dubjakova} v. Slovakia (dec.), No. 67299/01, 19 October 2004, with further references).
73. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that it is unable to conclude whether the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant could have been considered sufficient in domestic terms. The parties did not produce any relevant information in this regard. However, the Court's task in the present case is not to review the general practice of the domestic courts in awarding compensation for inhuman conditions of detention and not to set certain monetary figures which would satisfy the requirements of "adequate and sufficient redress" but to determine, in the circumstances of the case, whether the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant was such as to deprive him of "victim status" in view of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention pertaining to his detention in the Neman town temporary detention unit.
74. In this connection the Court considers that the duration of the applicant's detention in the Neman town detention unit and the reasons given by the domestic courts in making an award in respect of that detention are among the factors to be taken into account in assessing whether the domestic award could be considered as adequate and sufficient redress (see, mutatis mutandis, Staykov v. Bulgaria, No. 49438/99, §§ 91 - 93, 12 October 2006).
75. The Court observes, and it was not disputed by the parties, that the aggregate length of the applicant's detention in the Neman town detention unit amounted to three months and thirteen days. It further notes that on 6 April 2004 the Neman Town Court took into account a number of factors in making an award of RUB 1,500. Those factors were: the duration of the applicant's detention, "the level of physical and mental suffering" endured by him, the degree of responsibility of the unit management for the suffering caused to the applicant and the lack of financial resources.
76. The Court is mindful that the task of making an estimate of damages to be awarded is a difficult one. It is especially difficult in a case where personal suffering, whether physical or mental, is the subject of the claim. There is no standard by which pain and suffering, physical discomfort and mental distress and anguish can be measured in terms of money. The Court does not doubt that the domestic courts in the present case, with every desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention had had on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, No. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and to determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), No. 34368/02, 25 November 2004). However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the amount of RUB 1,500 awarded for more than three months of detention, that is, a rate of RUB 14.5 per day, was substantially lower than what it generally awards in comparable Russian cases (see, for example, Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, 16 June 2005, and Kantyrev v. Russia, No. 37213/02, 21 June 2007).
77. In this connection the Co

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 23 24 25

0.1148 с