arguments in favour of the applicant's release pending trial. It is of particular concern to the Court that the Russian authorities persistently used a stereotyped summary formula to justify the extension of the applicant's detention; the prosecutors reproduced the same formula in all their decisions. The Court also notes that the domestic authorities, using the same formula, simultaneously extended the detention of the applicant and his co-defendants. In the Court's view, this approach is incompatible, in itself, with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it permits the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention or of compliance with the "reasonable-time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, No. 7649/02, § 45, 14 December 2006; Korchuganova, cited above, § 76; and Dolgova v. Russia, No. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).
56. Having regard to the above, the Court considers that by failing to refer to concrete relevant facts or consider alternative "preventive measures" and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities prolonged the applicant's detention on grounds which, although "relevant", cannot be regarded as "sufficient" to justify its duration for more than three years. In these circumstances it would not be necessary to examine whether the proceedings against the applicant were conducted with "special diligence".
57. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
58. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he had not been informed about the reasons for his arrest and the charge against him. Relying on Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention, he further complained that the domestic court had failed to establish the exact date when the murder had been committed, that the domestic court favoured the prosecution over the defence, that it had disregarded the evidence produced by him and had restrained him in the exercise of his procedural rights, and that the domestic court had shifted the burden of proof to him and had evaluated the evidence incorrectly.
59. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court 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.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
60. 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
61. The applicant assessed the pecuniary damage at 10,000 euros (EUR), which represented his loss of earnings during the detention period and the amounts spent on food parcels while in the remand centre. He further claimed EUR 90,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
62. The Government submitted that the claim of pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated. They further submitted that the claim of non-pecuniary damage was excessive and that the finding of a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
63. The Court finds that there has been no causal link between the violation found and the claimed pecuniary damage. Consequently, it sees no reason to award the applicant any sum under this head.
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
