examine whether the proceedings were conducted with "special diligence".
60. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 18 of the Convention
61. The applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been politically motivated and that he had been persecuted for his membership of the opposition organisation the National Bolshevik Party. He invoked Article 18 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"The restrictions permitted under [the] Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed."
62. The Court has examined this complaint in the light of the evidence submitted to it, and finds that it is unsubstantiated. The applicant was prosecuted for his participation in mass disorder rather than for his membership of an opposition organisation. Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
63. 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
64. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
65. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive. In their opinion, the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
66. The Court observes that it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in that the length of the applicant's detention was not sufficiently justified. It considers that the applicant must have suffered frustration, helplessness and a feeling of injustice as a consequence of the domestic authorities' decisions to keep him in custody without sufficient reasons. It finds that the applicant suffered non-pecuniary damage which would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation. The particular amount claimed is, however, excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 5,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
67. The applicant claimed 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for his representation. He submitted that his representative had spent 25 days on the preparation of the application form and the observations. It had been agreed between the applicant and his representatives that his work would be remunerated at the rate of RUB 1,000 per day. He produced receipts showing that he had already paid the legal fee. Relying on postal invoices, he also claimed RUB 188.50 for postal expenses.
68. The Government did not comment.
69. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his 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, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 580, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
C. Default interest
70. 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 complaint concerning the excessi
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
