Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Евгений Корнев (Yevgeniy Kornev) против России» [англ.]

imself of the hearing and the steps to be taken in order to participate in it.
64. Having regard to the entirety of the proceedings before the supervisory-review court, its role, and the nature of the issues determined by it, the Court reaches the conclusion that there were no special features to justify the court's failure to ensure the applicant's participation in the hearing. Nor can it be said that in the present case the applicant has waived his right to appear before the supervisory-review court. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

65. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his arrest on 7 August 2001. He complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings on the charge of extortion, which ended with his conviction on 26 March 2002, were not conducted in accordance with the applicable laws, that the courts assessed evidence in an arbitrary manner and that the appeal court failed to rectify the errors allegedly committed by the trial court.
66. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the events complained of 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 Articles 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

67. 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

68. The applicant claimed 2,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
69. The Government considered the applicant's claim excessive.
70. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress and frustration as a result of the police brutality, lack of effective investigation in response to his complaint about it and the State authorities' failure to ensure his participation before the supervisory-review court. However, the Court accepts the Government's argument that the particular amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

71. The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

C. Default interest

72. 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 complaints concerning the applicant's ill-treatment by the police and the effectiveness of the ensuing investigation and the applicant's absence from the supervisory-review hearing admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment by the police;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into the applicant's a



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet