ratione temporis, to conduct the additional investigation of the case, which had already been investigated in 1989 - 1995. Furthermore, no justification was provided for the period of one year and four months which elapsed while the appeal court examined the applicant's appeal.
23. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see {Pelissier} and Sassi, cited above). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
A. Complaints related to the period from 1992 to 1995
24. The applicant lodged several complaints related to the events of 1992 - 1995. He complained, in particular, of ill-treatment by the police and an ineffective investigation in this respect, of the unlawfulness of his arrest and of numerous procedural violations during the pre-trial and the trial proceedings.
25. The Court reiterates that it is only competent to examine complaints of violations of the Convention arising from events that have occurred after the Convention entered into force with respect to the High Contracting Party concerned. The Convention entered into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998.
26. It follows that these complaints are incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
B. Complaints related to the period from 2001 to 2003
27. The applicant further complained that the domestic courts had failed to assess correctly the facts and evidence in the case.
28. The Court observes that it is not its task under the Convention to act as a court of appeal, or a so-called court of fourth instance, where decisions taken by domestic courts may be contested. It is the role of the latter to apply the domestic law and assess the evidence before them (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A No. 235-B, pp. 32 - 33, § 33, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A No. 247-B, § 34).
29. 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.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
30. 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
31. The applicant claimed 1,500,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
32. The Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
33. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately compensated by the findings of a violation alone. However, the amount claimed by the applicant appears to be excessive. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,500 plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
34. The applicant did not claim reimbursement of his costs and expenses incurred before the d
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
