/98, § 82, 8 April 2004; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, No. 55712/00, §§ 78 - 80, 7 February 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, No. 3456/05, §§ 95 - 104, 4 October 2005; and Patsuria v. Georgia, No. 30779/04, §§ 68 - 71, 6 November 2007).
71. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to justify the applicants' continued detention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
72. 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
73. The applicants claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
74. The Government did not comment.
75. The Court notes that it has found several violations in the present case. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants' suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by the mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
76. The applicants did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses and this is not a matter which the Court is required to examine of its own motion (see {Motiere} v. France, No. 39615/98, § 26, 5 December 2000).
C. Default interest
77. 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 unlawfulness of the applicants' detention from 5 June to 10 July 2003 and from 8 October 2003 to 9 January 2004 and the excessive length of their detention on remand admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicants' detention on remand from 5 June to 10 July 2003;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicants' detention on remand from 8 October 2003 to 9 January 2004;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Andre} WAMPACH
Deputy Registrar
> 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
