EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LABZOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 62208/00)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 16.VI.2005)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set
out in Article 44 з 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Labzov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 May 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 62208/00) against
the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Vladimir
Madestovich Labzov ("the applicant") on 8 June 2000.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was
represented by Ms Gabriele Braun, a lawyer practising in
Strasbourg. The Russian Government ("the Government") were
represented by Mr Pavel Laptev, the Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the conditions of
his detention on remand were inhuman and that the State hindered
his free communication with the Court.
4. The application was allocated to the First Section of the
Court (Rule 52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section,
the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з 1 of the
Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
5. By a decision of 8 January 2004, the Court declared the
application partly admissible.
6. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its
Sections (Rule 25 з 1). This case was assigned to the newly
composed First Section (Rule 25 з 2).
7. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on
the merits (Rule 59 з 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting
the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 з
3 in fine).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
A. The applicant's detention on remand
8. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Cheboksary. He
used to work as a manager of a private building partnership. In
April 2000 the police charged him with embezzlement. They accused
the applicant of having fraudulently appropriated a tractor and a
tank truck belonging to the partnership.
9. On 10 April 2000, the investigator in charge of the
applicant's case interviewed the applicant and decided to put him
in a remand prison. Since the applicant had had a heart condition
during the interview, the investigator had to put him in a prison
hospital instead.
10. Diagnosed with a coronary heart disease, the applicant
spent the next 36 days in hospital UL-34/4. During this time, he
was 14 times examined by a cardiologist and once by a neurologist.
The doctors treated the applicant with medicines and made
laboratory tests. As soon as the applicant's condition had
stabilised, he was discharged from the hospital.
11. On 16 May 2000, the applicant was relocated to remand
prison IZ-21/2 in Tsivilsk. The parties' descriptions of the
prison and of the life in it differ.
12. According to the applicant, prisoners were delivered to the
prison in armoured vans. Even though the heat outside reached
30-C, each van carried as many as 30 - 40 prisoners. The air in
the vans was stuffy. Guards clubbed the prisoners and set the dogs
on them. The prison building, built in the 18th century, had never
been renovated. Dirt-filled floors let no air through. Cells were
illuminated with 40 watt filament lamps, too dim to read by. The
prison administration confiscated all the medicines the applicant
had and gave no replacement.
13. According to the Government, the applicant was delivered to
the prison in a van that could carry 22 prisoners. The air outside
was cool, 6-C, and the van carried as few as 14 prisoners. The
guards used no clubs or dogs. In 2002 - 03 the prison building was
renovated: sanitary equipment was replaced, walls were repainted,
a forced ventilation system was installed. During the applicant's
stay in the prison, all cells were sufficiently lit with filament
lamps. Windows were large enough to read and work by natural
light. The temperature and humidity in the cells were within the
established norms. The prison had a central continuous supply of
potable water from its own artesian well. The quality of the water
was routinely inspected by a bacteriological laboratory. Every
cell had a cistern of potable water. In addition, daily at 7 a.m.
and 4 p.m. prisoners received boiled drinking water. The applicant
always had a separate bed, a mattress, a blanket, two sheets, a
pillow, and a pillow-case. He could have shower at least once a
week. After each shower, the applicant received fresh bedding and
underwear. Prison doctors treated him and gave him necessary
medicines. The applicant could not, however, have any medicines of
his own.
14. On his arrival to the prison, the applicant was put in Cell
16, in which he spent half a day. The parties' descriptions of
this cell differ.
15. According to the applicant, this cell was in a poor
technical condition. Its floor was flooded with excrements.
2
16. According to the Government, this cell measured 19.3 m
It housed 20 prisoners, even though it was designed to house 10.
There was a double-glazed window of 115 x 95 cm. The window had a
115 x 20 cm window leaf to ventilate the cell. In one corner of
the cell there were a toilet and a wash-basin. The toilet was
fixed 70 cm above the floor and could be reached by two steps. It
was separated from the rest of the cell with a curtain and a tiled
wall, at least 1 m high. The toilet had flushing taps and central
sewage. The wash-basin provided cold running water.
17. In the evening of 16 May 2000, the applicant was relocated
to Cell 49 in which he spent the next 29 days. The parties'
descriptions of this cell differ.
2
18. According to the applicant, this cell measured 15 m . It
housed, on average, 35 - 40 prisoners, even though it had only 20
beds. The prisoners had to take turns to sleep. Sleeping was
impossible because the lights were always on, and because the
prisoners listened to music and talked day and night. The windows
were covered with metal blinds which let through too little light.
No bedding, crockery, or cutlery was available. As the dinner
table was small, the prisoners had their meals in shifts, often
sharing the crockery with the ill. The food was hardly edible.
Cock-roaches, ants, rats, mice, and lice abounded. Hot water
supply was limited to 20 litres a day. The toilet was fixed 1.2 m
above the floor, right in front of the guards' peephole. As the
guards were mostly women, using the toilet was a humiliation. The
cell was overpopulated, and five prisoners suffered of dysentery.
Therefore, the toilet was always occupied. Once in a fortnight, a
prisoner could spend five minutes in a shower. Once a day, the
prisoners had an hour-long walk in a small yard on the roof of the
building.
2
19. According to the Government, this cell measured 21.2 m .
During the applicant's stay, the cell on average housed 22
prisoners, even though it was designed to house 10. There were two
double-glazed windows of 120 x 120 cm each. Each window had a 25 x
25 cm window leaf to ventilate the cell. In one corner of the cell
there were a toilet and a wash-basin. The toilet was fixed 25 cm
above the floor. It was separated from the rest of the cell with a
tiled wall, at least 1 m high. The toilet had flushing taps and
central sewage. The wash-basin provided cold running water. There
were no prisoners suffering from dysentery in the cell. Prisoners
suffering from intestinal infections, vermin, veneral diseases,
and acute tuberculosis were housed apart.
20. As the applicant's health had worsened, on 14 June 2000 he
was relocated to a temporary detention unit, and on 16 June 2000 -
back to hospital UL-34/4. He spent the next 36 days in the somatic
ward of the hospital. During this period, a cardiologist examined
the applicant 13 times and treated him. As soon as the applicant's
condition had stabilised, he was discharged from the hospital.
21. On 22 July 2000, the applicant was returned to the prison
and put in Cell 18 where he spent the next 2 days. The parties'
descriptions of this cell differ.
22. According to the applicant, windows in this cell had no
glass. Instead, they were tightly covered with halved metal tubes.
Small holes in the tubes let through little light. The cell was
located in the basement and had no ventilation. No bedding,
crockery, or cutlery was available. The toilet was fixed 1.8 m
above the floor. Next to it stood a dinner table. As the cell
housed as many as 78 prisoners, the toilet and the table were
always occupied, often at the same time. Smokers made non-smokers'
life a misery. Whenever someone fell unconscious, guards dragged
him out into the corridor for a breath of fresh air.
23. According to the Government, this cell was located in the
2
ground floor and measured 23 m . During the applicant's stay, the
cell on average housed 17 prisoners, even though it was designed
to house 10. There were two double-glazed windows of 70 x 70 cm
each. Each window had a 70 x 20 cm window leaf to ventilate the
cell. In one corner of the cell there were a toilet and a
wash-basin. The toilet was fixed 45 cm above the floor and could
be reached by a step. It was separated from the rest of the cell
with a tiled wall, at least 1 m high. The toilet had flushing taps
and central sewage. The wash-basin provided cold running water.
24. On 24 July 2000, the applicant was taken to the temporary
detention unit for interrogation.
25. On 28 July 2000, he was returned to the prison and put in
Cell 49 where he spent the next 4 days.
26. On 31 July 2000, the investigating authorities dropped the
charges against the applicant under an amnesty law.
27. On 1 August 2000, the applicant was released.
B. The applicant's departure from Russia
28. In January 2003 the applicant left Russia for Strasbourg.
The parties' accounts of the events preceding the departure
differ.
1. The applicant's account
29. On 20 December 2002, an investigating officer of the
Ministry of the Interior of the Chuvash Republic telephoned the
applicant. Without naming himself, the officer invited the
applicant to an interview concerning a criminal investigation. The
applicant was not aware of any investigations.
30. On 21 December 2002, K., a Deputy Director of the Economic
Crimes' Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chuvash
Republic, telephoned the applicant. He interrogated the applicant
about his application to the Court. K. hinted that the applicant
had better withdraw his case from the Court, or else the police
would find a pretext for a new criminal case and imprison him
again.
31. On 23 December 2002, P., the Director of the Economic
Crimes' Department, telephoned the applicant and invited him for
an interview. During the interview, P. ordered the applicant with
gestures to speak low because the room was bugged. Afraid to
speak, P. wrote down all crucial phrases and showed them to the
applicant. Such precaution not being enough, P. and the applicant
continued their conversation in the corridor. P. told the
applicant that he would start a new criminal case against him,
imprison him, and let him languish to death. P. demanded the
applicant to withdraw his application from the Court because it
had troubled influential officials of the Chuvash Republic.
32. On 26 December 2002, the applicant's car ran into four
lorries. The applicant alleges that the accident must have been
set up by his persecutors, because the traffic police ignored it.
33. The accident convinced the applicant that the threats were
serious. He and his wife went to Moscow, received French tourist
visas, and left for Strasbourg to seek political asylum.
34. The applicant had to leave behind his minor daughter, a
student, because she had no travel documents. After the
applicant's departure, the police threatened to kill the daughter.
She would have joined her parents in Strasbourg, but the parents
wished her to finish the studies. As soon as the daughter had
passed her first-year exams, she received a travel passport and on
13 July 2003 came to Strasbourg.
2. The Government's account
35. On an unspecified date, D., the manager of the partnership
defrauded by the applicant, requested the police to reinvestigate
the applicant's case. He asserted that the investigation had been
superficial, and that the applicant had not made good the damage
inflicted to the partnership.
36. In December 2002, K. and P., officers of the Economic
Crimes' Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chuvash
Republic, invited the applicant for an interview in connection
with D.'s allegation. Since the officers had failed to record D.'s
oral application formally, their superiors warned them.
II. Relevant council of europe documents
37. The relevant extracts from the General Reports by the
European Committee for the prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the CPT") read as follows:
Extracts from the 2nd General Report [CPT/Inf (92) 3]
"46. Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the CPT's
mandate. All the services and activities within a prison will be
adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners
than it was designed to accommodate; the overall quality of life
in the establishment will be lowered, perhaps significantly.
Moreover, the level of overcrowding in a prison, or in a
particular part of it, might be such as to be in itself inhuman or
degrading from a physical standpoint.
47. A satisfactory programme of activities (work, education,
sport, etc.) is of crucial importance for the well-being of
prisoners... [P]risoners cannot simply be left to languish for
weeks, possibly months, locked up in their cells, and this
regardless of how good material conditions might be within the
cells. The CPT considers that one should aim at ensuring that
prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable
part of the day (8 hours or more) outside their cells, engaged in
purposeful activity of a varied nature...
48. Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise. The
requirement that prisoners be allowed at least one hour of
exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic
safeguard... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities
should be reasonably spacious...
49. Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the
maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components
of a humane environment...
50. The CPT would add that it is particularly concerned when it
finds a combination of overcrowding, poor regime activities and
inadequate access to toilet/washing facilities in the same
establishment. The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove
extremely detrimental to prisoners.
51. It is also very important for prisoners to maintain
reasonably good contact with the outside world. Above all, a
prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his relationships
with his family and close friends. The guiding principle should be
the promotion of contact with the outside world; any limitations
upon such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns
of an appreciable nature or resource considerations..."
Extracts from the 7th General Report [CPT/Inf (97) 10]
"13. As the CPT pointed out in its 2nd General Report, prison
overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the Committee's
mandate (cf. CPT/Inf (92) 3, paragraph 46). An overcrowded prison
entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation; a constant lack of
privacy (even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary
facility); reduced out-of-cell activities, due to demand
outstripping the staff and facilities available; overburdened
health-care services; increased tension and hence more violence
between prisoners and between prisoners and staff. This list is
far from exhaustive.
The CPT has been led to conclude on more than one occasion that
the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and
degrading conditions of detention..."
Extracts from the 11th General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16]
"28. The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight
penitentiary systems across Europe and seriously undermines
attempts to improve conditions of detention. The negative effects
of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous
General Reports...
29. In a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly
in central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists
of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the
facilities used by prisoners on a daily basis, such as sleeping
and living areas as well as sanitary facilities. The CPT has
objections to the very principle of such accommodation
arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced
when, as is frequently the case, the dormitories in question are
found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious
conditions... Large-capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack
of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives... All these
problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a
reasonable occupancy level; further, in such a situation the
excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or
lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons
will often lead to deplorable conditions.
30. The CPT frequently encounters devices, such as metal
shutters, slats, or plates fitted to cell windows, which deprive
prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from
entering the accommodation. They are a particularly common feature
of establishments holding pre-trial prisoners. The CPT fully
accepts that specific security measures designed to prevent the
risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required
in respect of certain prisoners... [E]ven when such measures are
required, they should never involve depriving the prisoners
concerned of natural light and fresh air. The latter are basic
elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy..."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
38. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention
about the conditions of his detention in the remand facility IZ-
21/2 in Tsivilsk. Article 3 reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Submissions of the parties
1. The Government
39. The Government rejected this complaint. Relying on their
description of the prison, they asserted that the conditions in it
were satisfactory. The conditions complied with hygienic standards
of domestic penitentiary law and fell far short of "inhuman
treatment", as developed in the Convention case-law. The applicant
exaggerated his sufferings. During his stay in the prison the
cells were indeed overpopulated, but not as severely as he
asserted. In any event, the authorities had no intent to make the
applicant suffer.
2. The applicant
40. The applicant challenged the Government's account of facts
as wholly untrue. He stated that the Government had maliciously
falsified the reports on the conditions in the prison. The reports
were invalid since they bore no reference numbers or dates of
issue. Only the applicant's description of the prison was
accurate. He had no criminal case to answer and, in any event, was
to be released under the amnesty law. Hence, the authorities
imprisoned him purely out of the wish to torment him.
B. The Court's assessment
41. As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 3 of the
Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of
democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the
circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy
[GC], No. 26772/95, з 119, ECHR 2000-IV). However, to fall under
Article 3 of the Convention, ill-treatment must attain a minimum
level of severity. The assessment of this minimum level of
severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the
case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and
mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of
health of the victim (see {Valasinas} <*> v. Lithuania, No.
44558/98, зз 100 - 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
42. The Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and
humiliation involved must in any event go beyond the inevitable
element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of
legitimate treatment or punishment. Under this provision the State
must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are
compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and
method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to
distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable
level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the
practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are
adequately secured (see {Valasinas}, cited above, з 102). When
assessing conditions of detention, one must consider their
cumulative effects as well as the applicant's specific allegations
(see Dougoz v. Greece, No. 40907/98, з 46, ECHR 2001-II).
43. The Court notes that in the present case the parties have
disputed the actual conditions of the applicant's detention at
facility No. IZ-21/2 in Tsivilsk. However, in the present case the
Court does not consider it necessary to establish the truthfulness
of each and every allegation of the parties, because it may find a
violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts that have been
presented or undisputed by the respondent Government, for the
following reasons.
44. The main characteristic, which the parties have in
principle agreed upon, is the applicant's allegation that the
cells were overpopulated. From the facts as set out above it
follows that during the 35 days the applicant was detained at the
2
remand facility he was afforded less than 1 m of personal space
and shared a sleeping place with other inmates taking turns with
them to get a rest. Save for one hour of daily outside exercise,
the applicant was confined to his cell for 23 hours a day. In
these circumstances, the extreme lack of space weighs heavily as
an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing
whether the impugned detention conditions were "degrading" from
the point of view of Article 3.
45. In this connection the Court recalls that in the Peers
2
case even a much bigger cell - namely that of 7 m for two inmates
- was noted as a relevant aspect for finding a violation of
Article 3, albeit in that case the space factor was coupled with
the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see Peers v.
Greece, No. 28524/95, зз 70 - 72, ECHR 2001-III). The applicant's
situation was also comparable with that in the Kalashnikov case,
where the applicant had been confined to a space measuring less
2
than 2 m . In that case the Court held that such a degree of
overcrowding raised in itself an issue under Article 3 of the
Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, зз 96 - 97,
ECHR 2002-VI). By contrast, in some other cases no violation of
Article 3 was found, as the restricted space in the sleeping
facilities was compensated by the freedom of movement enjoyed by
the detainees during the day-time (see {Valasinas}, cited above,
зз 103, 107; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), No. 30138/02, 16
September 2004).
46. Hence, as in those cases, the Court considers the extreme
lack of space to be the focal point for its analysis of
compatibility of the conditions of the applicant's detention with
Article 3. The fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep,
and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates was
itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity
exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in
detention, and arouse in him the feelings of fear, anguish and
inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him (see Peers and
Kalashnikov, cited above; see also the CPT's 11th General Report
[CPT/Inf (2001) 16], з 29).
47. Furthermore, while in the present case it cannot be
established "beyond reasonable doubt" that the ventilation,
heating, lighting or sanitary conditions in the facility were
unacceptable from the point of view of Article 3, the Court
nonetheless recalls that the applicant's health conditions were
such that extensive medical treatment was required. This aspect,
while not in itself capable of justifying the notion of
"degrading" treatment, is relevant in addition to the focal factor
of the severe overcrowding, to show that the applicant's detention
conditions went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3 of the
Convention.
48. Finally, as regards the Government's submissions that the
authorities had no intention to make the applicant suffer, the
Court reiterates that, although the question whether the purpose
of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor
to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot
exclude a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Peers, cited
above; Kalashnikov, cited above, з 101).
49. The Court therefore finds that there has been a violation
of Article 3 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 34 of the Convention
50. The applicant also complained that the police compelled him
to withdraw his application from the Court. The Court examined
this complaint under Article 34 which reads as follows:
"The Court may receive applications from any person, non-
governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be
the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties
of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols
thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in
any way the effective exercise of this right."
A. Submissions of the parties
1. The Government
51. The Government rejected this complaint. They asserted that
P. and K. had interviewed the applicant only in connection with
the criminal investigation initiated on D.'s request. The
interview had nothing to do with the application to the Court.
2. The applicant
52. The applicant insisted that the aim of the interview was to
intimidate him. He doubted that D. had applied to the police at
all, since he could not have any reasonable claim against the
applicant. The applicant left Russia only because he was afraid
for his life.
B. The Court's assessment
53. The system of individual petition under Article 34 of the
Convention will operate effectively only if applicants or
potential applicants can communicate with the Court freely,
without experiencing any pressure from the authorities to withdraw
or modify their complaints (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, No.
21893/93, з 105, ECHR 1996-IV).
54. The parties agree that the interview between the applicant
and the officers did take place. Still, there is no evidence -
apart from the applicant's own words - that the purpose of the
interview was to compel the applicant to withdraw his case from
the Court.
55. The Court finds no indication that the applicant has been
hindered in the effective exercise of his right of individual
petition under Article 34 of the Convention. There has,
accordingly, been no violation of that Article.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
56. 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. Non-pecuniary damage
57. The applicant claimed that the poor conditions of his
detention and his having to leave Russia caused him non-pecuniary
damage of 100,000 euros ("EUR"). He also claimed that his
imprisonment aggravated his illness and had provoked a heart
attack. He claimed a further EUR 10,000,000 in this respect.
58. The Government rejected these claims because, in their
opinion, the applicant's rights under Articles 3 and 34 of the
Convention had not been breached. The Government considered that
these claims were in any event excessive. The Government argued
that the applicant had never had a heart attack in prison. He
suffered of a coronary heart disease acquired in 1998, long before
the imprisonment.
59. The Court has no evidence that the applicant indeed had a
heart attack in prison. Nevertheless, the Court accepts that the
conditions of his imprisonment must have subjected him to distress
and hardship which cannot be compensated solely by the finding of
a violation. Deciding equitably, and taking into consideration in
particular the relatively short period of detention, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Pecuniary damage
60. The applicant claimed that he had to leave in Russia five
unfinished houses worth EUR 791,650. He asserted that he was
afraid for his life and could not return to Russia, hence, the
houses were as good as lost. The applicant asked the Court to
recover the cost of the houses by way of pecuniary damage.
61. The Government agued that the houses belonged not to the
applicant, but to his former business partners.
62. The Court has no evidence that the houses indeed belong to
the applicant. Even if they do, nothing suggests that the
applicant has been deprived of them. Accordingly, the Court makes
no award under this head.
C. Default interest
63. The Court considers 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 3 of the
Convention;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 34 of the
Convention;
3. Holds
(a) 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 з 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two
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 on that amount;
(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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 June 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
|
