Решения Европейского Суда по делам
против России
На русском
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no.
62208/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 June 2005
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 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 § 1 of the Rules of
Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article
27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 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 § 1). This case
was assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 25 § 2).
7. The applicant and
the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber
decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was
required (Rule 59 § 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 30oC, 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, 6oC, 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.
16. According to the
Government, this cell measured 19.3 m². It housed 20 prisoners, even though it
was designed to house 10. There was a double-glazed window of 115 × 95 cm. The
window had a 115 × 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.
18. According to the
applicant, this cell measured 15 m². 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.
19. According to the
Government, this cell measured 21.2 m². 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 × 120 cm each. Each window had a 25 × 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 ground floor and measured 23 m². 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 × 70 cm
each. Each window had a 70 × 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, § 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 Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100–101, ECHR
2001-VIII).
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 Valašinas, cited above, § 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, § 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
remand facility he was afforded less than 1 m²
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 case even a much bigger
cell – namely that of 7 m² 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, §§ 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 than 2 m². 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, §§ 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
Valašinas, cited above, §§ 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], § 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, § 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, § 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 § 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 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules
of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
LABZOV
v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
LABZOV
v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
