mself effectively (see Maxwell v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, § 38, Series A No. 300-C, with further references). Of even greater relevance, however, is the fact that the applicant had been sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. For the applicant therefore the issue at stake was an extremely important one (ibid., § 38).
123. In sum, given the nature of the proceedings, the wide powers of the Kaliningrad Regional Court, the limited capacity of an unrepresented appellant to present a legal argument and, above all, the importance of the issue at stake in view of the severity of the sentence, the Court considers that the interests of justice required that the applicant be granted legal aid for representation at the hearing of his appeal. The Court also does not lose sight of the Government's submission that the Russian Constitutional Court characterised as erroneous the appeal courts' practice of denying legal assistance to defendants.
124. The Court therefore finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.
V. Other alleged violations of the Convention
125. The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
126. 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
127. The applicant claimed 10,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
128. The Government submitted that the applicant had received "full reparation" at the domestic level in respect of his complaints related to his detention in the Neman town detention unit. The domestic courts had allowed his action and awarded him RUB 1,500. They further submitted that, in any event, the applicant's claims were manifestly ill-founded.
129. The Court reiterates, firstly, that the applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of the non-pecuniary damage he sustained (see Gridin v. Russia, No. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). The Court further observes that it has found a combination of particularly grievous violations in the present case. The Court accepts that the applicant suffered humiliation and distress on account of the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention in the Neman town detention unit and detention facility No. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad. In addition, he was unable to present his case effectively in the three sets of civil proceedings and did not benefit from legal assistance in the appeal proceedings in his criminal case. 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 the applicant the sum claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
130. The applicant also asked the Court to award any sum it considered sufficient for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and those incurred in the Strasbourg proceedings.
131. The Government did not comm
> 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
