Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 1618/06

As regards the legal costs and expenses, referred to by the applicant, the Court notes that it has a discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (see Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court and, for example, Zakirov v. Russia (dec.), no. 50799/08, 18 February 2014; M.C.E.A. Voorhuis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 28692/06, 3 March 2009; Shevanova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 58822/00, §§ 52-56, 7 December 2007; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 130-133, ECHR 2007-I; and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, § 33, 1 March 2005).

The Court reiterates that when making an award under Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court, the general principles governing reimbursement of costs are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002, M.C.E.A. Voorhuis, cited above, no. 28692/06, 3 March 2009, and Youssef v. the Netherlands (dec.) no. 11936/08, 27 September 2011).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 1618/06

The Court recalls that it has routinely found violations of Articles 3 and 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention in cases against Russia on account of inhuman and degrading conditions of applicants" pre-trial detention, its excessive length and absence of relevant and sufficient grounds for it, as well as on account of an excessive length of its judicial review (see, among other authorities, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007 and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 1618/06

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 1618/06

The Court recalls that it has routinely found violations of Articles 3 and 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention in cases against Russia on account of inhuman and degrading conditions of applicants" pre-trial detention, its excessive length and absence of relevant and sufficient grounds for it, as well as on account of an excessive length of its judicial review (see, among other authorities, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007 and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 1618/06

As regards the legal costs and expenses, referred to by the applicant, the Court notes that it has a discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (see Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court and, for example, Zakirov v. Russia (dec.), no. 50799/08, 18 February 2014; M.C.E.A. Voorhuis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 28692/06, 3 March 2009; Shevanova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 58822/00, §§ 52-56, 7 December 2007; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 130-133, ECHR 2007-I; and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, § 33, 1 March 2005).