[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF TROJANOWSKI v. POLAND
(Application
no. 27952/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 February
2011
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 Trojanowski v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 27952/08) against the Republic
of Poland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Polish national, Mr Oskar
Trojanowski (“the applicant”), on 4 June 2008.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr Jakub Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that his detention on remand
exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
He further complained about the conditions of his detention.
- On
7 December 2009
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Warsaw.
A. Criminal proceedings
against the applicant and his pre-trial detention
- On
7 July 2006 the applicant was charged with drug trafficking,
committed in an organised and armed criminal group.
- On
22 September 2006 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy)
gave a decision, ordering the applicant's detention on remand for a
period of fourteen days. The applicant submitted that this
decision has not been served on him and that he had been unaware of
the charges introduced against him.
The
Government contested that fact, submitting that the applicant had
been in hiding.
- On
12 October 2006 a wanted notice (list gończy) was issued
by the Warsaw District Court with a view to locating the applicant.
- On
24 October 2006 the applicant was arrested. In the applicant's record
of arrest (protokół zatrzymania), the reasons for
his arrest read as follows: 'wanted notice; transport to the
closest remand centre or prison (...)' (“list gończy,
doprowadzenie do najbliższego AŚ lub ZK”).
- On
3 November 2006 the Warsaw District Court remanded him in custody,
relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence
in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant
in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the
proceedings, given the risk that he might go into hiding and induce
witnesses to give false testimony, particularly given that a wanted
notice had been issued in the course of the investigation with a
view to locating the applicant. The court also stressed the severity
of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the applicant was
charged with an offence committed in an organised and armed criminal
group.
- Later,
several other members of the same criminal group were detained and
charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.
- The
applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further
appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his
subsequent, numerous applications for release were unsuccessful. In
his applications and appeals he argued that the charges against him
were based on unreliable evidence. He also relied on his personal
circumstances, in particular the need to ensure care for his
elderly mother.
- In
the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was
prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd
Okregowy) delivered on 28 December 2006 and 21 May 2007.
In
all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied
on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the
offences in question, which was supported by evidence from
witnesses. They underlined the grave nature of those offences and the
likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the
applicant. The courts attached great importance to the complexity of
the case, the significant number of persons involved (around 100
persons) and the voluminous documentation gathered in the
proceedings. They further considered that the need to secure the
proper conduct of the proceedings justified holding the applicant in
custody, as he could otherwise induce the witnesses to change their
testimonies or go into hiding, regard being had in particular to the
fact that a wanted notice had been issued in the course of the
investigation with a view to locating the applicant. The courts
stressed, on several occasions, that a number of experts' opinions
had to be requested and legal help had to be sought from Sweden.
- On
11 April 2007 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the applicant's
appeal against the detention order of 24 October 2006, holding that
the arrest had been legitimate and lawful and that the applicant had
been instructed about his rights, in particular about a right to
appeal against the order. It further noted that the applicant was
informed by the police authorities that a wanted notice had been
issued in the proceedings, which justified his arrest.
- On
26 September 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw
Regional Court. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges of
drug trafficking and extortion committed in an organised criminal
group brought against twenty-nine defendants.
- During
the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the
applicant's detention pending trial. The applicant's detention was
extended by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court delivered on 8
October 2007 and 11 February 2008 and by decisions of the Warsaw
Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) delivered on 26
June and 4 December 2008 and 18 June 2009. The courts
repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued
detention.
Furthermore,
in its decision of 11 February 2008 the court noted that a special
room had to be reserved for hearings in the present case,
as it concerned a dangerous criminal group.
In
its decision of 4 December 2008 the court stressed the need to have
the proceedings completed within a reasonable time.
- On
25 March 2008 the trial court held the first hearing.
- On 21 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court decided that
he could be released on payment of bail in the
amount of 40,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 10,000 euros
(EUR)). The applicant did not pay the bail.
- On 20 November 2009 the Warsaw
Regional Court lifted the applicant's detention.
- The proceedings are still pending before the
first-instance court.
B. Conditions of the
applicant's detention
1. The applicant's account
21. From
24 October 2006 to 19 November 2009 the applicant was detained in
Warszawa-Białołęka Remand Centre. He was released
on 20 November 2009.
- According
to the applicant's submissions, all of the cells where he was
held were dark and overcrowded and the
detention facility had poor sanitary conditions. In that respect he
complained about insufficient supply of basic hygiene products (one
toilet paper roll, one soap bar, one tube of toothpaste and some
shaving gel per month). He further complained that a hot, ten-minute
long shower has been offered to prisoners once a week only.
- The
applicant submitted that initially he had been placed in a six person
cell, which measured 15 m².
Later,
approximately in June 2008, he was held in a two-person cell, which
measured 7.6 m².
Subsequently,
he was held together with five other prisoners in a cell measuring 12
m². The cell was equipped with bunk-beds and a table. There was
also a sanitary corner in the cell.
- The
applicant further claimed that there was mould on the ceiling and the
walls of the cell. There was no ventilation in the cell, which made
breathing difficult, particularly since the cells were opened only
when meals were served and when the prisoners took a one-hour long
daily walk in the outside yard. The electricity in the cells was cut
off between 9 and 12 a.m. and 1 and 3 p.m.
Lastly,
the applicant submitted that when a hearing had been held before the
trial court, no hot meals have been served at the remand centre.
2. The Government's account
25. The Government submitted that between
25 October 2006 and 14 October 2008 and on 10 December 2008 the
applicant was detained in cells in
which the statutory minimum requirement of 3 m² per person was
not respected.
- They supplied the following
details concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention:
- from 24 to 26 October 2006 the applicant was
placed in a cell with a surface area of 12.69 m², which he
shared with four other inmates;
- from 27 October to 20 November 2006 he remained, together with
four other inmates, in a cell measuring 12.67 m²;
- from 21 November 2006 to 8 March 2007 he was
detained in a cell of 12.32 m², together with four other
persons;
- from 9 to 29 March 2007 the applicant was
held in a cell of 12.33 m², together with five other inmates;
- from 30 March 2007 to 31 March 2008 he
remained in a cell measuring 12.70 m², together with four
persons;
- from 1 April to 19 August 2008 he was placed
in a cell of 5.16 m² that he shared with another person;
- from 20 August to 7 October 2008 he shared a
cell measuring 12.68 m² with four persons;
- from 8 to 13 October 2008 he was detained
with another person in a cell of 5.22 m²;
- from 14 October to 9 December 2008 he shared
a cell of 12.68 m² with three other inmates;
- on 10 December 2008 he was held together with another person in a
cell measuring 5.15 m²;
- from 11 December 2008 to 20 November 2009 he remained in a cell
with a surface area of 12.58 m², which he shared with four other
inmates.
- Lastly, the Government submitted
that personal hygiene products were always issued at the request of a
detainee and that the applicant had access to radio and television in
the remand centre. He also had a right to a sixty minute
walk every day.
3. The applicant's actions concerning the conditions of
his detention
- The
applicant did not lodge any formal complaints with the penitentiary
authorities regarding specifically the conditions of his detention.
Nor did he bring a civil action in tort to seek an improvement of his
detention conditions or compensation for the infringement of his
personal rights.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Preventive
measures, including pre-trial detention
- The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the
imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe),
the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules
governing other, so-called “preventive measures” (środki
zapobiegawcze) are presented in the Court's judgments in the
cases of Gołek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§
27-33, 25 April 2006 and Celejewski v. Poland, no.
17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006.
B. Relevant
statistical data
- The
relevant statistical data, recent amendments to the Code of Criminal
procedure designed to streamline criminal proceedings and references
to the relevant Council of Europe materials can be found in the
Court's judgment in the case of Kauczor (see Kauczor v.
Poland, no. 45219/06, § 27-28 and 30-35, 3 February
2009).
C. Conditions of detention
- A
detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice
concerning general rules governing conditions of detention in Poland
and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that conditions
of their detention are inadequate are set out in the Court's pilot
judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no.
17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05)
on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88
respectively). More recent developments are described in the decision
given by the Court in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no.
52070/08) on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained that the length of his
detention on remand had been excessive. He relied on Article 5
§ 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant,
reads as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be
... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending
trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Period to be taken into consideration
- The
applicant's detention started on 24 October 2006, when he was
arrested on suspicion of having committed several drug trafficking
offences, while acting in an organised and armed criminal group.
On 20 November 2009 the applicant's detention was
lifted.
Accordingly,
the period to be taken into consideration amounts to three years and
almost one month.
2. The parties' submissions
(a) The applicant
- The
applicant submitted in general terms that his detention was
excessively lengthy.
(b) The Government
-
The Government refrained from expressing their opinion on the merits
of the complaint.
3. The Court's assessment
(a) General principles
- The
Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right
“to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending
trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were
stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other
authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96,
§ 110 et seq, ECHR 2000 XI; and McKay v. the
United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR
2006-..., with further references).
(b) Application of the above principles in
the present case
- In
their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the
reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principally on
four grounds, namely (1) the serious nature of the offences with
which he had been charged; (2) the severity of the penalty to which
he was liable; (3) the complexity of the case; (4) the need to secure
the proper conduct of the proceedings given the risk that the
applicant might tamper with evidence and go into hiding. As regards
the latter, they relied on the fact that the applicant had been
sought by a wanted notice (see paragraph 8 above).
- The
applicant was charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking
committed in an organised and armed criminal group (see paragraphs 6
and 15 above).
In
the Court's view, the fact that the case concerned a member of such
a criminal group should be taken into account in assessing
compliance with Article 5 § 3 (see Bąk v. Poland,
no. 7870/04, § 57, 16 January 2007).
- The
Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of
having committed serious offences could initially warrant his
detention. Also, the need to determine the degree of the alleged
responsibility of each of the defendants, who had acted in a criminal
group and against whom numerous charges of serious offences were laid
and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings,
constituted valid grounds for the applicant's initial
detention.
- Indeed,
in cases such as the present one concerning organised criminal
groups, the risk that a detainee, if released, might bring pressure
to bear on witnesses or other co-accused or might otherwise
obstruct the proceedings often is, by the nature of things, high. In
this respect, the Court notes, however, that in all the decisions
extending the applicant's detention, no specific substantiation of
the risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses emerged. In the absence of any other factor capable of
showing that the risk relied on actually existed, this argument
cannot be accepted in the context of the whole period.
- Furthermore,
according to the authorities, the likelihood of a severe sentence
being imposed on the applicant created a presumption that the
applicant would obstruct the proceedings. However, the Court would
reiterate that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a
relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or
re-offending, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself
justify long periods of detention on remand (see Michta v. Poland,
no. 13425/02, §§ 49, 4 May 2006).
- As regards the risk of the
applicant's fleeing, the Court's attention has been drawn to the fact
that a wanted notice had been issued against him in the course of the
investigation. However, the Court cannot agree with the domestic
authorities' assessment that the fact that the applicant had gone
into hiding in the past was alone sufficient to establish, without
further inquiry, a risk that he would abscond or otherwise obstruct
the proceedings (see, for example, Kacprzyk
v. Poland, 50020/06, § 40, 21
July 2009).
In the Court's opinion, the national
authorities lacked sufficient arguments to conclude that the risk of
the applicant's going into hiding existed throughout the entire
period of his detention.
In that respect the Court recalls that the risk
of absconding has to be assessed in the light of factors
relating to the person's character, his morals, home, occupation,
assets, family ties and all kinds of links with the country in which
he is prosecuted (see Becciev v.
Moldova, 9190/03, § 58,
4 October 2005).
The
Court lastly notes that following the decision lifting the detention,
the applicant has respected the conditions of his release.
- As
regards the complexity of the case, the Court's attention has been
drawn to the nature of the charges and the number of the accused
(see paragraph 15 above). It appears, however, that the
authorities referred to the complexity of the case in a very general
manner. There is no indication that the nature of the case
required the applicant's continuous detention. Moreover, it seems
that the authorities failed to envisage, at an earlier stage in
the proceedings, the possibility of imposing other preventive
measures on the applicant.
- While
all those above factors could justify even a relatively long period
of detention, they did not give the domestic courts an unlimited
power to prolong this measure. In this context, the Court would
observe that until the date of his release, the applicant had already
spent three years and almost one month in pre-trial detention.
- Having
regard to the foregoing, even taking into account the fact that the
courts were faced with the particularly difficult task of trying a
case involving an organised criminal group, the Court concludes that
the grounds given by the domestic authorities could not justify the
overall period of the applicant's detention. In these circumstances
it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted
with special diligence.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of
the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant alleged a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in that he
had been detained in overcrowded cells and that the State had failed
to secure to him adequate living conditions throughout his
detention.
A. The Government's objection on exhaustion of domestic
remedies
- Article
35 § 1 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant,
as follows:
“1. The Court may only deal with the
matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to
the generally recognised rules of international law ...”
- The
Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic
remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that
relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak
v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§
63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had already
been released on 20 November 2009. In these circumstances, the
situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article 3 of the
Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil
action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of
the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation.
- In
view of the foregoing, the Government invited the Court to reject
this part of the application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,
pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
B. The applicant's' position
- The applicant did not submit any comments.
C. The Court's conclusion
- The Court already examined the same objection raised
by the Government in the above mentioned case of Łatak v.
Poland and considered their arguments not only in the context of
that particular applicant but also in respect of other actual or
potential applicants with similar cases (see Łatak,
cited above, §§ 71-85).
- In
so doing, the Court had regard to the fact that on the date of the
adoption of its decision there were 271 cases pending before it where
the applicants had raised complaints similar in substance, alleging a
violation of Article 3 in that at various times and for various
periods they had been adversely affected by the same structural
problem, having been detained in overcrowded, insanitary cells
(ibid. § 84).
- Having
found that a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction
with Article 448 of the Civil Code could be considered an “effective
remedy” for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention as from 17 March 2010 and having regard to the 3-year
limitation period for lodging such an action, the Court held that
essentially in all cases in which in June 2008 the alleged violation
had either been remedied by placing the applicant in
Convention-compliant conditions or had ended ipso facto because
the applicant had been released, the applicants concerned should
bring a civil action for the infringement of personal rights and
compensation (ibid. § 85 and § 76 respectively).
- In
the present case the situation giving rise to the alleged violation
of Article 3 ended on 20 November 2009, the date on which the
applicant was released. That being so and having regard to the fact
that he still has adequate time to prepare and lodge with the Polish
civil courts an action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with
Article 448 of the Civil Code, he should, before having his
Convention claim examined by the Court, be required to seek
redress at domestic level.
- It
follows that the complaint about the conditions of the applicant's
detention must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of
the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained, under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention,
that at the time of his detention, that is on 24 October 2006, he had
not been properly informed about the reasons for his arrest, nor of
any charge brought against him. He further claimed that it had not
been until 3 November 2006, when charges were laid against him,
that he learned of the reasons for his arrest and the nature of
the charges.
- Even assuming that the applicant
had been informed about the nature of the charges as late as he
claimed, the Court notes that, in any event, he had been
informed by the national authorities about the charges against him
more than six months before lodging his application with the Court.
It
follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must
therefore be rejected in compliance with Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention.
- The
applicant invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complaining
about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against
him.
- The
Court notes that persons complaining about the length
of proceedings before the Polish courts are required by Article
35 of the Convention to lodge a complaint about the breach of the
right to a trial within a reasonable time under the Law
of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to
an investigation conducted and supervised by a Prosecutor and to
a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa
o skardze na naruszenie prawa
strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym
prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora I postępowaniu
sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (see
Charzyński v. Poland (dec.) no. 15212/03, 1
March 2005). The applicant failed to make use of this remedy.
It
follows that the complaint concerning the excessive length of the
proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention for non exhaustion of domestic
remedies.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
46 of the Convention provides:
“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to
abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they
are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be
transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise
its execution.”
- Recently,
in the case of Kauczor v. Poland (see Kauczor, cited
above, § 58 et seq. with further references) the Court held that
the 2007 Resolution taken together with the number of judgments
already delivered and of the pending cases raising an issue of
excessive detention incompatible with Article 5 § 3 demonstrated
that the violation of the applicant's right under Article 5 § 3
of the Convention had originated in a widespread problem
arising out of the malfunctioning of the Polish criminal justice
system which had affected, and may still affect in the future, an as
yet unidentified, but potentially considerable number of persons
charged in criminal proceedings.
- It
is true that the present case concerns a person involved
in an organised criminal group. However, as stated above,
while this element is to be taken into account in assessing
compliance with Article 5 § 3 and may justify a
longer period of detention than in a case concerning an individual
offender, a member of an organised criminal group is entitled to the
protection against unreasonably lengthy detention afforded by this
provision (see paragraphs 40-41 above). As in other numerous similar
detention cases, the authorities did not justify the applicant's
continued detention by relevant and sufficient reasons
(see paragraphs 42 47 above). Moreover, as
demonstrated by the ever increasing number of judgments in which the
Court has found Poland to be in breach of Article 5 §
3 in respect of applicants involved in organised crime, the
present case is by no means an isolated example of the
imposition of unjustifiably lengthy detention but a confirmation
of a practice found to be contrary to the Convention (see,
among many other examples, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04,
4 May 2006; Kąkol v. Poland, no. 3994/03, 6
September 2007; Malikowski v. Poland, no. 15154/03,
16 October 2007 and also Hilgartner v. Poland, no. 37976/06,
§§ 46-48, 3 March 2009). Consequently, the Court sees
no reason to diverge from its findings made in Kauczor as
to the existence of a structural problem and the need for the Polish
State to adopt measures to remedy the situation (see Kauczor,
cited above, §§ 60-62).
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested this claim. They submitted that the applicant
had failed to provide any evidence of his allegedly suffered
pecuniary loss. They further stated that the amount claimed by the
applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage was unreasonable
in the light of the Court's case-law concerning similar cases brought
against Poland.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
On the other hand, it considers that the applicant has suffered
non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated by the
finding of a violation of the Convention. Considering the
circumstances of the case and making its assessment on an equitable
basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant submitted no claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
- 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
- Declares the complaint concerning the length of
the applicant's pre-trial detention admissible and the remainder of
the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 3 of the Convention;
- 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, EUR 1,000 (one
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax
that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 February 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
