I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2016-10-11
- Communication date: 2013-12-19
- Application number(s): 33330/11
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1, 8-2, 13
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.585334
- Prediction: No violation
Inconsistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Datuna Vladimirovich Dzhalagoniya, is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Kostroma.
He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant has been living in Russia since 1987, initially under a Soviet Union passport.
Between 1987 and 2005 the applicant lived in the Rostov Region.
In 1998, in accordance with the procedure then in force, the applicant was issued with an additional certificate for his passport (“вкладыш”) specifying that he was a citizen of the Russian Federation.
On 19 February 2002 police department no.
1 of Taganrog, the Rostov Region, issued the applicant with a Russian Federation passport.
In 2005 the applicant moved to Kostroma.
In June 2010, when the applicant turned forty-five, in accordance with the applicable procedure he applied to the Federal Migration Service (FMS) for renewal of his passport.
Thereupon the applicant received a verbal refusal to issue him with a new passport.
According to the official, the applicant had failed to prove that he had had a permanent place of residence in Russia on 6 February 1992, and his place of residence had only been registered in Russia since February 2002.
On 30 June 2010 the Rostov Region FMS issued a certificate to the effect that, according to an enquiry, police department no.
1 of Taganrog had issued the applicant with a Russian passport in breach of the applicable regulations.
On 7 September 2010 the Kostroma Region FMS adopted a decision to the effect that, according to an enquiry, the applicant was not a Russian citizen.
The applicant appealed against the refusal to renew his passport to the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma.
On 21 October 2010 that court upheld the decision of the FMS.
It noted that as a result of a check conducted pursuant to Articles 51 and 52 of the 2002 Regulation on Examination of Issues Related to Citizenship of the Russian Federation, the FMS had found that the applicant had been issued the Russian passport in breach of the applicable rules and was not entitled to Russian citizenship.
In particular, it had not been confirmed that he had been living in Russia on 6 February 1992.
This justified the refusal to renew his passport.
The court also noted that the reports of the checks conducted by the FMS were neither appealed against nor set aside in accordance with the established procedure, and that they were not subject to the court’s examination in the present proceedings.
The court further dismissed the applicant’s argument that the fact that he had used the previously issued Russian passport for eight years constituted a valid reason for the renewal of the passport.
The court likewise dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had not violated any laws or regulations in 2002, when he had been issued with the Russian passport.
The court found that his passport was invalid regardless.
The applicant appealed.
On 6 December 2010 the Kostroma Regional Court upheld the decision.
The appeal court noted, in particular, that the certificate issued by the Rostov Region FMS on 30 June 2010 showed that the Russian passport had been issued to the applicant on the basis of a certificate of 23 December 1998 issued by the Leninskiy District Department of the Interior of Rostov-on-Don stating that he was a Russian citizen in accordance with Article 13 § 1 of the 1991 Law on Citizenship of the Russian Federation.
However, the legal validity of that certificate had not been confirmed.
It further noted that according to the results of the enquiries carried out in the places indicated by the applicant as his places of residence in Russia between 1989 and 2002, no confirmation of the applicant’s registration and residence as of 6 February 1992 was received with respect to any of the addresses indicated.
The appeal court also noted that the applicant’s argument to the effect that he had not been informed about the report issued following the check conducted by the FMS and that therefore he could not have appealed against it did not affect the court’s conclusions.
B.
Relevant domestic law and practice 1.
Legislation a.
1991 Russian Citizenship Act Under section 12 § 1 of Law no.
1948-1 on Citizenship of the Russian Federation of 28 November 1991, in force between 6 February 1992 and 1 July 2002 (the 1991 Russian Citizenship Act), Russian citizenship could be acquired by: a) recognition thereof; b) birth; c) registration of citizenship; d) grant of citizenship; e) restoration of citizenship; f) choice of citizenship where a territory changed its nationality and on other grounds provided for by international treaties the Russian Federation is party to.
Under section 13 § 1 all citizens of the USSR permanently residing in Russia on the date of entry into force of the Act (that is, 6 February 1992) were recognised as citizens of the Russian Federation unless, within a year after that date, they stated that they did not wish to have Russian citizenship.
b.
2002 Russian Citizenship Act Under section 5 of Law no.
62-FZ on Citizenship of the Russian Federation of 31 May 1995, in force since 1 July 2002 (the 2002 Russian Citizenship Act), Russian citizens are: « a) persons who had Russian citizenship on the date of entry into force of this Act; b) persons who have acquired Russian citizenship in accordance with this Act.
» Under section 10 a passport constitutes a document that confirms citizenship.
Under section 30 (a) federal executive agency exercising control and supervision in the field of migration is competent to determine whether persons living in the Russian Federation have Russian citizenship.
c. 2002 Regulation on Examination of Issues Related to Citizenship of the Russian Federation Under Article 51 of the Regulation on Examination of Issues Related to Citizenship of the Russian Federation, adopted by Presidential Decree no.
1325 of 14 November 2002, if a person does not have a document confirming citizenship (due to loss, theft, damage, etc.
), as well as if there are doubts concerning the authenticity or validity of such a document or if there are circumstances leading to doubt as to whether the person has Russian citizenship, the competent agency conducts a check as to whether the documents were issued lawfully.
The check is conducted upon an application by an individual or upon the initiative of the competent agency or another State authority Under Article 52, upon receipt of the necessary information the competent agency draws up a reasoned report on the results of the check, stating the circumstances which prove that the person either has or does not have Russian citizenship.
Either the applicant or the agency who initiated the check must be informed of the results of the check.
The person who is proved to have Russian citizenship is then issued with the relevant document.
d. 2004 Regulation on the FMS Article 1 of the Regulation on the Federal Migration Service adopted by Presidential Decree no.
928 of 19 July 2004 (the 2004 Regulation on the FMS), in force until 15 January 2013, provided that the FMS exercised control and supervision in the field of migration.
e. 1997 Regulation on Passports Article 1 of the Regulation on Passports of Citizens of the Russian Federation adopted by Government Decree no.
828 of 8 July 1997 (the 1997 Passport Regulation ) provides that a passport is the main document that proves the identity of a citizen of the Russian Federation.
Under Article 10, it is for the territorial agencies of the FMS to issue and renew passports.
2.
Judicial practice In decision no.
GKPI 06-337 of 6 June 2006 the Supreme Court stated that “a passport confirms citizenship of the Russian Federation, which does not arise out of this document but on the grounds and according to the procedure provided for by the federal law and other [applicable] laws and regulations”.
In decision no.
KAS 06-300 of 17 August 2006 the Appeals Division of the Supreme Court stated that a “passport constitutes a document confirming citizenship of the Russian Federation only if it is issued by a competent State agency in the official form in accordance with the [applicable] procedure.
A passport that does not meet these requirements may neither be considered a [valid] document nor confirm the [holder’s] citizenship of the Russian Federation”.
It also noted that “the rules on seizure of unduly issued passports that do not constitute a document confirming citizenship of the Russian Federation do not affect the rights and freedoms of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation”.
3.
The Ombudsman’s Special Report On 6 December 2007 the Ombudsman issued a Special Report on the Practice of Seizing Russian Passports from Former Citizens of the USSR who had moved to the Russian Federation from CIS Countries, which was published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 26 January 2008.
In the report he criticized the administrative practice of taking away Russian passports from former citizens of the Soviet Union born outside Russia, who had received Russian passports and applied for their renewal.
Their old passports were seized and the issue of new ones was denied on the ground that the previous passports had been issued to them “by error” through no fault of their own.
Thousands of people were concerned by this practice, and in most cases there were no judicial decisions.
Many regional ombudsmen also issued special reports on the practice of seizing passports.
The Ombudsman pointed out that for several years following the disintegration of the Soviet Union in Russia there had been neither a streamlined procedure on acquisition/recognition of Russian citizenship, nor even a standard document to confirm it.
In such circumstances, between 1997 and 2007 Russian passports were issued to 162.4 million people.
Over 126 million passports were issued before 2004.
When people born in other republics of the former Soviet Union obtained Russian passports, they simultaneously acquired the rights and obligations of Russian citizenship: they voted, paid taxes, received education, served in the army and obtained other documents, including the “international passport” required for travelling abroad.
As in all cases the issue of a passport followed a check of whether the person was a Russian citizen, all holders of a Russian passport are supposed to have undergone such a check at least once.
Those who subsequently applied for an “international passport” or for renewal of their Russian passport must have successfully undergone the check a number of times.
Hence, there could be no fault or bad faith on the part of those persons in that they were granted Russian passports.
Yet, several thousands of Russian passports were seized on the ground of being “erroneously issued”, whereas, according to the Ombudsman, breaches of the procedure for issuing passports, if any, were due to the under qualification and negligence of the staff of the competent State agencies, or even mercenary crimes committed by them.
The Ombudsman further referred to a claim submitted by the prosecutor’s office of the Saratov Region to the Fedorovskiy District Court whereby it sought to declare unlawful the local FSM branch’s practice of seizing Russian passports on the grounds of “doubts that they had been lawfully issued to persons born outside the Russian Federation”.
According to the prosecutor’s office, as a Russian passport confirms Russian citizenship, it may only be seized where citizenship is revoked on the basis of a court decision establishing that the person had submitted false information or documents in order to acquire it.
However, the Fedorovskiy District Court dismissed the application, having found that issues concerning citizenship were in the sole competence of the President and his competent executive agencies.
The Ombudsman pointed out in this respect that the courts were not precluded from establishing facts which had served as the basis for the decision to issue a passport.
The Ombudsman further criticized decision of the Supreme Court no.
KAS 06-300, in which it considered that a passport merely confirmed Russian citizenship and its seizure had no bearing on constitutional rights.
He believed this approach to contradict the Court’s findings in Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
46133/99 and 48183/99, § 97, ECHR 2003‐IX (extracts) to the effect that “in their everyday life Russian citizens have to prove their identity unusually often, even when performing such mundane tasks as exchanging currency or buying train tickets.
The internal passport is also required for more crucial needs, for example, finding employment or receiving medical care.
The deprivation of the passport therefore represented a continuing interference with the applicant’s private life”.
In the Ombudsman’s view, without a passport the person cannot fully enjoy constitutional rights and freedoms, because the realization of such rights is directly linked to documents confirming his or her identity.
The seizure of such a document entails the loss of employment and the possibility to either find new employment or receive a pension and the loss of medical and other types of social security and the possibility to obtain travel documents and register a marriage.
It limits property rights and also deprives the person of judicial remedies, even in order to appeal against the decision of the FMS.
Therefore, a person whose Russian passport has been seized finds himself or herself in a worse situation than a foreign national or a Stateless person living in Russia on the basis of a foreign passport or a residence permit.
According to the Ombudsman’s conclusions, where a Russian passport was wrongfully issued due to an error on the part of a State agency or agencies, the error should be rectified with no detriment to the passport holder.
The latter should be unconditionally recognised as a Russian citizen, at least until it is established that he or she was granted Russian citizenship and a passport unlawfully through his or her own fault.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the refusal to renew his Russian passport which, according to him, de facto deprived him of his constitutional rights.
The applicant points out, in particular, that without a valid passport he can neither find employment nor receive medical assistance.
Judgment
THIRD SECTIONCASE OF CHUGUNOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 18883/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 October 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Chugunov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,Dmitry Dedov,Branko Lubarda, judges,and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 18883/12) 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 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Chugunov (“the applicant”), on 29 March 2012. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr V. Shukhardin, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3. On 4 November 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1982 and is serving a prison sentence in Donskoy, Tula Region. A. Conditions of the applicant’s detention and medical care
5. On 27 June 2005 the Zhukov District Court of the Kaluga Region found the applicant guilty of battery and manslaughter and sentenced him to eleven years and one month’s imprisonment. On 6 September 2005 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 6. On 20 December 2005 the applicant started serving a prison sentence in correctional colony no. IK-1 in the Tula Region. Prior to the applicant’s arrest and conviction, he suffered from duodenal ulcer, chronic bronchitis and high blood pressure. In detention he developed chronic gastritis, hernia of a diaphragm, chronic cholecystitis, lipomas and pilonidal cysts. 7. On 23 January 2012 the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell. During the day time, the pull-down beds were folded up during the day. The inmates were able either to stand or sit on a metal stool fastened to the floor. The cell was cold and damp. There was no ventilation system. Because of the cracks in the door and windows, there was constant draught. The toilet was separated with a 80-centimetre high partition from the living area of the cell. There was no hot water supply. The applicant was allowed 1.5 hours’ daily exercise and one 30 minutes’ shower per week. 8. On 21 March 2012 the applicant started having a fever resulting from an inflamed pilonidal cyst in the coccyx area. 9. On 22 March 2012 a prison doctor examined the applicant, prescribed him a treatment by antibiotics and pain killers. The doctor also recommended that the applicant consult a surgeon. 10. On 23 March 2012 the head of the correctional colony extended the applicant’s detention in a disciplinary cell for another fifteen days. The prison doctor examined the applicant and concluded that he was fit for detention in the disciplinary cell. He continued the prescribed treatment. 11. On 28 March 2012 the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital at correctional colony no. IK-5. According to the applicant, he was able to consult a surgeon only on 5 April 2012. The applicant’s surgery was scheduled on 10 April 2012. 12. On 8-9 April 2012 the applicant’s cyst opened up and the inflammation stopped. 13. On 18 April 2012 the applicant was released from hospital and transferred back to the correctional colony. 14. On 25 April 2012 the applicant consulted a surgeon and a neurologist at the hospital of correctional colony no. IK-2. He was prescribed medication for high blood pressure. The surgeon recommended that the applicant undergo a surgery in connection with the pilonidal cyst. 15. From 14 to 30 August 2012 the applicant underwent additional examination and treatment at the surgical division of the hospital at correctional colony no. IK-5. According to the doctors who treated the applicant, no surgery was required. B. Correspondence with the Court
16. According to the applicant, on 5 June 2012 the applicant was summoned by the head of the operations division of the colony. There were several officers present in the office. They advised the applicant to withdraw his application before the Court. They threatened him that, should he choose to pursue his application, he would be serving the rest of his sentence in a disciplinary cell without family visits and he could be charged with another offence. The applicant complied. He signed a letter. It was stamped by the colony and dispatched to the Court on 6 June 2012. 17. On 14 June 2012 the applicant wrote another letter to the Court wherein he asked the Court to disregard his previous letter that he had had to write because of the pressure put on him by the administration of the colony. 18. On 25 June 2012 the Court received the applicant’s letter wherein he asked for withdrawal of his complaint. The letter bore a stamp of the correctional colony and a number attributed to by the administration. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
19. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention and lack of medical assistance in the correctional colony had not been compatible with the standards set out in Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
He further alleged that he had not had at his disposal effective remedies in respect of his grievances under Article 3 as required by Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
20. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention, including the time during which he had been detained in a disciplinary cell, had been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. At all times he had received necessary medical treatment. The Government submitted a copy of the applicant’s medical case-file in support of their argument. They further argued that the applicant failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint. In particular, he could have lodged a civil claim before a court. However, he had not explained why he considered such recourse to be futile in the circumstances of his case. 21. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that he had been detained in appalling conditions in a disciplinary cell from January to March 2012. He further claimed that the medical treatment he had received in connection with the pilonidal cyst in March-April 2012 had been inadequate. Lastly, he argued that the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian correctional facilities were a systemic problem and, accordingly, he had been dispensed with an obligation to bring his grievances concerning the conditions of his detention to domestic courts before applying to the Court. Admissibility
22. The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, it is not necessary for it to examine the Government’s objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as these complaints are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 1. Conditions of detention in a disciplinary cell
23. As regards the allegedly appalling conditions of the applicant’s detention in a disciplinary cell from 23 January to 28 March 2012, the Court reiterates that, in order for it to examine the merits of the complaint, the applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the conditions of his detention which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 122, 10 January 2012). Regard being had to the applicant’s submissions on the point (see paragraph 7 above), the Court is unable to conclude that the condition of his detention reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as unhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. 24. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 2. Medical assistance
25. The Court further observes that the thrust of the applicant’s complaint about the alleged lack of due medical care is the authorities’ failure to ensure proper treatment for the pilonidal cyst in the coccyx area the applicant suffered from in March-April 2012. Having examined the medical documentation submitted by the parties, the Court, however, finds the applicant’s allegations unsubstantiated. According to the applicant’s medical file, at the relevant time he was examined by medical practitioners and prescribed requisite treatment which led to his recovery. The irregularities in the medical assistance provided to him, if any, were not such as to render it incompatible with the standards set out in Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 3. Effective remedies
26. As to the applicant’s complaint that he did not have an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is “arguable” (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003‐VIII, with further references). The Court has found that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention and alleged lack of adequate medical care are manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible. It accordingly finds that that claim cannot be said to be “arguable” within the meaning of the Convention case-law (compare Aleksandr Dmitriyev v. Russia, no. 12993/05, § 42-43, 7 May 2015). It follows that the corresponding complaint under Article 13 is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. II. ALLEGATION OF HINDRANCE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION
27. The applicant complained that on 5 June 2012 the officers of the correctional colony where he was serving a prison sentence had made him write a letter to the Court asking to withdraw his application. He relied on Article 34 of the Convention, which reads:
“The Court may receive applications from any person... 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.”
28. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that, while it had been open to the applicant to dispatch any letters to the Court, he had chosen not to send any via the administration of the correctional colony. At no time had the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment during the time he had been serving a prison sentence at the correctional colony. 29. The applicant maintained his complaint. 30. The Court reiterates that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted by Article 34 of the Convention that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 105, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‐IV, and Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996‐VI, p. 2288, § 105). Whether or not contacts between the authorities and an applicant are tantamount to unacceptable practices from the standpoint of Article 34 must be determined in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. In this respect, regard must be had to the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities (see Akdivar, cited above, § 105). The applicant’s position might be particularly vulnerable when he is held in custody with limited contacts with his family or the outside world (see Cotleţ v. Romania, no. 38565/97, § 71, 3 June 2003). 31. The Court observes that the Government have not challenged the applicant’s allegation that the meeting between him and the officers of the correctional colony did take place on 5 June 2012. However, the Government have not provided any detail as to the purpose of the meeting or its outcome. Nor have the Government furnished any explanation as to why the applicant’s letter of 6 June 2012 contained the correctional colony’s stamp and a registration number. Their submissions on the matter were of a very general nature and contained no specifics to accept or disprove the applicant’s allegations. 32. Accordingly, the Court lends credence to the applicant’s account of the events of 5 June 2012 and considers it established that the applicant asked the Court to discontinue the examination of his case as a result of the pressure put on him by the officers of the correctional colony. The actions on the part of the administration of the correctional colony had an intimidating effect on the applicant and constituted an inappropriate interference with the exercise of his right of individual petition in breach of the respondent State’s obligation under Article 34 of the Convention. 33. It follows therefore that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
34. 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
35. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 36. The Government considered the applicant’s claims excessive. In their opinion, the acknowledgement of a violation would constitute adequate just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case. 37. The Court considers that the applicant must have experienced anguish and suffering resulting from the undue pressure exerted on him by the administration of the correctional colony and that this would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 7,500 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. B. Costs and expenses
38. The applicant also claimed EUR 2,220 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 39. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence in support of his claims and that he should not be entitled to any compensation under this head. 40. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the Court notes that EUR 850 has already been paid to the applicant by way of legal aid. Having regard to the documents submitted by the applicants in support of their claims, the Court does not consider it necessary to make any additional award under this head. C. Default interest
41. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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. Decides to proceed with the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 34 and declares the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Fatoş AracıHelena JäderblomDeputy RegistrarPresident