upervisory review court fails to consider the implications of its decision for legal certainty by dealing with the prosecutor's arguments as if in ordinary appeal proceedings and reopening finalised proceedings on vaguely formulated and evanescent grounds (see Radchikov, cited above, §§ 48 - 49).
32. Accordingly the Court finds that the quashing of the Taganrog Town Court's judgment of 24 September 1999 was not intended to correct a fundamental judicial error or a miscarriage of justice but was used merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing and a fresh determination of the case. Therefore, the Court considers that the State authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
33. In addition to that the Court notes that the applicant had not been apprised of the application for supervisory review, was not given a chance to lodge objections to having the case reopened and could not participate in the Presidium's hearing, unlike the prosecutor.
34. In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
35. 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
36. The applicant requested the Court to make an award of 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.
37. The Government considered that any finding of a violation by the Court would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.
38. The Court considers that the applicant suffered non-pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 1,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
39. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,600 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, which included the translator's and the lawyers' fees. He provided the copies of relevant contracts and payment receipts.
40. The Government contested the claims on the grounds that these expenses were not necessary, in particular that the applicant's representation by three counsel had not been justified; moreover the applicant had not provided the power of attorney in respect of Mrs E.V. Kiryanova and Mr K.N. Lugantsev.
41. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of 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. The Court, having regard to the certificates provided by the applicant, notes that the legal fees have indeed been paid to the three lawyers. However, given that the overall amount did not exceed what would appear reasonable in the circumstances it does not consider that the arrangement by which the work was shared between several lawyers should by itself prevent the Court from making the award. The Court accordingly awards the sum of EUR 1,600 covering costs and expenses for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
C. Default interest
42. 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 THE
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
