1 of the Convention
57. 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
58. The applicant requested the Court to make an award for non-pecuniary damage in the amount to be determined by the Court.
59. The Government considered that any finding of a violation by the Court would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.
60. 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 2,000 euros (EUR), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
61. The applicant also claimed EUR 300 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
62. The Government contested the claims indicating that the applicant had only submitted receipts in respect of 4,189 Russian roubles.
63. 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. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 120 covering costs and expenses for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
64. 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. Joins to the merits the Government's objection concerning the victim status of the applicant and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the lack of adequate legal assistance at the hearing before the court of appeal and the applicant's participation in that hearing by means of the VCF admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in that the applicant did not receive effective legal assistance during the appeal proceedings;
4. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the question whether the applicant's participation in the appeal hearing by video link complied with Article 6 of the Convention;
5. 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, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 120 (one hundred and twenty euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amounts;
(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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 February 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of
> 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
