ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2003"ДЕЛО "РАКЕВИЧ (rakevich) ПРОТИВ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ" [рус., англ.]

damage
50. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary loss. She referred to the emotional stress and anxiety caused by her detention in the psychiatric institution. She underlined that she had also felt helpless because of the manner in which her detention had been effected and the inability to challenge it.
51. The Government argued that the amount claimed was excessive, given that any procedural irregularities possibly committed in the applicant"s case had not brought about a violation of her substantive rights.
52. The Court observes that some forms of non-pecuniary damage, including emotional distress, by their very nature cannot always be the object of concrete proof (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A No. 94, § 96). This does not prevent the Court from making an award if it considers that it is reasonable to assume that an applicant has suffered prejudice requiring financial compensation. In the present case, it is reasonable to assume that the applicant suffered distress, anxiety and frustration because her detention, for many days, was not based on a judicial decision.
53. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
54. The applicant also claimed EUR 3,300 for costs and expenses. She submitted that she had spent EUR 100 on an independent psychiatric expertise, EUR 200 on medical treatment to restore her health, and EUR 3,000 on her legal representation before the Court.
55. The Government pointed out that the applicant had not sufficiently substantiated her expenses.
56. The Court notes that there is nothing in the materials submitted by the applicant indicating that she did indeed incur the expenses claimed. Moreover, the applicant received legal aid from the Council of Europe (see paragraph 2 above). Consequently, the Court finds no justification for making an award under this head.
C. Default interest
57. 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 5 § 1 of the Convention;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
3. Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) 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, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant"s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 October 2003 pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
J.-P.COSTA
President
{S.DOLLE}
Registrar

"СОГЛАШЕНИЕ МЕЖДУ МИНИСТЕРСТВОМ ЗДРАВООХРАНЕНИЯ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ И МИНИСТЕРСТВОМ ЗДРАВООХРАНЕНИЯ РЕСПУБЛИКИ БЕЛОРУССИЯ О ВЗАИМНОМ ПРИЗНАНИИ САНИТАРНО-ЭПИДЕМИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЙ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ И УДОСТОВЕРЕНИЙ О ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ГИГИЕНИЧЕСКОЙ РЕГИСТРАЦИИ РЕСПУБЛИКИ БЕЛОРУССИЯ"(Заключено в г. Москве 24.10.2003)  »
Международное законодательство »
Читайте также