Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.01.2009 "Дело "Антропов (Antropov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

vides:
"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

71. The applicant claimed 112,500 Russian roubles in respect of pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his detention on criminal charges, including alleged damage to his flat while he was in detention. He also claimed 300,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of violation of his Convention rights.
72. The Government contested the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated and excessive.
73. The Court notes that the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage relates to the complaints that have been found inadmissible (see paragraphs 68 - 69 above); it therefore rejects this claim. The Court further observes that it has found serious violations of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case, most importantly torture. In these circumstances, it considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Nevertheless, the particular amount claimed appears excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 22,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

74. The applicant requested the Court to reimburse him the expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court but did not indicate the amount sought.
75. The Government contended this claim as unsubstantiated.
76. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his 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. Having noted that the applicant's request contained no particulars and was not accompanied by any supporting documents, the Court dismisses the claim under this head.

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 under Article 3 concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant, the lack of effective investigation thereof and the conditions of the applicant's detention in facility No. IZ-25/5 in Ussuriysk admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant's complaints about the ill-treatment;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention from 16 February 2001 to 5 March 2003 in facility No. IZ-25/5 in Ussuriysk;
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, EUR 22,000 (twenty-two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State 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 r



> 1 2 3 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet