to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf and the principle of equality of arms, which are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial, imply that he should have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to challenge the assumption effectively (see, mutatis mutandis, Popov v. Russia, No. 26853/04, § 183, 13 July 2006).
37. In the light of the above considerations, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
38. The applicant further complained that his arrest had been unlawful, that he had not been provided with legal assistance on 22 and 23 October 1999, that his complaints about the investigator's actions had not been examined and that the trial judge was biased. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by him. However, having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters fall within its competence, it finds that these complaints 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.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
39. 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
40. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
41. The Government submitted that this claim had not been substantiated and was excessive.
42. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, having regard to the nature of the violation found and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
43. The applicant also claimed EUR 300 for unspecified costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 3,000 for the lawyer's eventual travel to Strasbourg.
44. The Government submitted that the applicant had not specified the nature of the above costs and expenses, and had not provided any proof that these had actually been incurred.
45. 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 were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
46. 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 complaint concerning the courts' refusal to examine defence witnesses admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judg
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
