Судебное дело "Борисов против России"
15.09.2010
УПОЛНОМОЧЕННЫЙ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ПРИ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОМ СУДЕ ПО ПРАВАМ
ЧЕЛОВЕКА
Representative Representant
of the Russian Federation de la Federation de Russie aupres de
at the European Court of Human Rights la Cour Europeenne des Droits de
Г Homme
14, Zhitnaya, Moscow, 119991 tel. (495) 677-09-40, fax (495) 677-06-93
15 september 2010 No. 14-6907-10
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Additional observations application no. 12543/09 Borisov v. Russia
On 10 August 2010, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter
referred to as "the European Court") communicated to the authorities
of the Russian Federation the applicant's observations on the above
application together with his claims for just satisfaction and invited
the authorities of the Russian Federation to submit their further
observations and comments on the applicant's claims for just
satisfaction.
In this connection, the authorities of the Russian Federation would
like to submit the following.
1. On 26 March 2010, the authorities of the Russian Federation
submitted to the European Court the Memorandum, in which their
position regarding the case Borisov v. Russia was stated. The
Memorandum was submitted within the time limits established by the
European Court. All of the applicant's arguments were examined in the
said Memorandum and appropriate assessment was given thereto, as well
as comprehensive answers were given to the questions posed by the
European Court.
2. Hereby, the authorities of the Russian Federation entirely confirm
their position stated in their Memorandum in respect of the above
application and the questions of the European Court and would like to
stress that the applicant has not
advanced sufficient reasons that could possibly refute the submissions
of the authorities of the Russian Federation as his objections appear
to contain irrelevant speculations rather than new arguments ad rem
concerning the subject-matter of the instant case.
3. Simultaneously, the authorities of the Russian Federation would
like to draw the European Court's attention to the following.
4. According to the applicant, he made relevant calculations based on
the information, presented by the authorities of the Russian
Federation in their Memorandum, concerning the quantity of detainees
in the cells of IZ-66/1 (See the applicant's observations, S: 1). In
this connection it should be noted that in the applicant's
calculations there are a lot of distorted facts and invalid inferences
based on them.
Therefore, the mentioned summary in the applicant's observations
regarding violation of Article 3 of the Convention is not valid and
the European Court's case-law (See the applicant's observations, S:
1-9) is irrelevant to this application.
The authorities of the Russian Federation reiterate:
* that all cells of IZ-66/1 in which the applicant was kept were
equipped with forced-air supply and exhaust ventilation with
mechanical drive. Forced ventilation technical characteristics
provided sufficient air circulation in cells;
* there is a brick partition which separates the lavatory facility
from the living area in all cells of IZ-66/1;
* during the whole period of detention in IZ-66/1 the applicant was
provided with all necessary bedding and dinnerware.
The authorities of the Russian Federation believe that there was no
violation of Article 3 of the Convention and the conditions of the
applicant's detention were compatible with Article 3 of the
Convention.
5. The authorities of the Russian Federation strongly disagree with
the applicant's allegations that his right to be present and
participate at an appeal hearing was violated and entirely confirm
their position stated in the Memorandum in respect of these
allegations (See S:S: 48-67 of the Memorandum).
6. The authorities of the Russian Federation reiterate that there are
no reasons to assume that they have anyhow violated the applicant's
conventional rights.
Comments on the applicant's claims for just satisfaction
7. Considering the question of awarding just satisfaction, the Court
is based
on the fact that causal relation should lay between the damages, which
the
applicant suffered, and a breach of Conventional provisions (e.g., see
Benthem v.
Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985, S: 46; Kalashnikov v. Russia,
judgment
of 15 July 2002, S:139).
8. Compensation can be awarded to the applicant only if the fact of
violation of his rights, as guaranteed by the Convention, and the
damage, he suffered resulting from the violation of his rights, are
established as well as the causal link between the said violation and
the inflicted damage.
9. The authorities of the Russian Federation would like to note that
they do not consider that the rights of the applicant have been
violated. However, if the Court finds any violation of the Convention,
the finding of a violation would in itself be adequate just
satisfaction in the applicant's case.
Concerning the claims for non-pecuniary damage
10. In respect of the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage, the
authorities of the Russian Federation, taken into account the Court's
wide
jurisprudence related to complaints against violations of Article 3
and Article 6
S:S:1 and 3 (c) of the Convention express their opinion that the
amount of 15,000
Euros claimed by the applicant is excessive from the standpoint of the
Court's
approach grounded on the equitable basis (See Dorokhov v. Russia,
judgment of
14 February 2008; Romanov v. Russia, judgment of 20 October 2005).
11. As for the applicant's claims for costs and expenses, the
authorities of
the Russian Federation note that, according to the Court's case-law,
the applicants
are entitled to reimbursement of their costs and expenses only in so
far as it has
been shown that they have been actually incurred and were reasonable
as to
quantum (see, Skorobogatova v. Russia, judgment of 1 December 2005,
no. 33914/02, S: 61).
Best regards,
G. Matyushkin
Добавить комментарий: