Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 "Дело "XXXXX (XXXXX) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

n to the injured party."

A. Non-pecuniary damage

106. The applicant claimed 750,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained.
107. The Government contested this sum as excessive and not in line with the Court's case-law or the principle of equity.
108. The Court observes, as stated above, that it found a breach of the applicant's Article 8 rights on account of restrictions imposed by the authorities on the applicant's access to A. between 11 December 2003 and 25 January 2005. The Court considers that the applicant indisputably sustained non-pecuniary damage, which cannot be compensated solely by a finding of a violation. Deciding on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.

B. Costs and expenses

109. The applicant also claimed EUR 14,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. He submitted bills for contracts concluded between the applicant and his lawyers with indications of the fee paid.
110. The Government did not agree with the amounts claimed, stating that the alleged expenses had not been proved and that moreover some of them related to the fees incurred in the domestic proceedings and thus should not be compensated.
111. The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], No. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
112. In the present case, regard being had to the documents submitted by the applicant, the above criteria and the complexity of the case, the Court awards EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.

C. Default interest

113. 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. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the period between 11 December 2003 and 25 January 2005;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the period between 26 January and 2 November 2005;
3. 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 settlement:
(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar






> 1 2 3 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet