Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 19.03.2009 «Дело Полонский (Polonskiy) против России» [англ.]

se circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. However, the amounts claimed appear excessive. In particular, the Court observes that although the applicant has been held in detention pending trial for more than five years, during part of this period he was concurrently serving his sentence in an unrelated criminal case. The extension of his detention during that period did not prejudice his position or cause him any actual damage. The Court must take this fact into account when determining the amount of just satisfaction to be awarded. Making its assessment on an equitable basis and taking into account the gravity of the ill-treatment, the Court awards the applicant EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

185. The applicant also claimed EUR 100 for postal expenses.
186. The Government argued that the applicant had only submitted copies of the acknowledgement-of-receipt cards, which did not indicate the mailing costs.
187. The Court notes that under Rule 60 of the Rules of the Court, any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, "failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part". The applicant failed to itemise his claim or submit receipts or other vouchers on the basis of which the amount of postal expenses actually incurred by him could be established. Accordingly, the Court rejects the claim.

C. Default interest

188. 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, the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, the excessive length of the applicant's detention and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 March 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar





In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the concurring opinion of Judge Malinverni is annexed to this judgment.


> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet