À cet égard, elle rappelle que l'article 5 § 5 ne confère pas un droit à une indemnisation d'un montant particulier, pourvu que celle-ci ne soit pas dérisoire ou entièrement disproportionnée (Attard c. Malte (déc.), no 46750/99, 28 septembre 2000, et Cumber c. Royaume-Uni, no 28779/95, décision de la Commission européenne des Droits de l'Homme du 27 novembre 1996), ou considérablement inférieure à ce que la Cour accorde dans des cas similaires de violation (Ganea c. Moldova, no 2474/06, § 30, 17 mai 2011, et Cristina Boicenco c. Moldova, no 25688/09, § 43, 27 septembre 2011).

Having regard to the amount awarded to the applicant for his illegal imprisonment, can he still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention? If so, do the facts of the case, in particular the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant, disclose a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Ganea v. Moldova, no. 2474/06, §§ 25-31, 17 May 2011; Attard v. Malta (dec.), no. 46750/99, 28 September 2000; and Cumber v. the United Kingdom, no. 28779/95, Commission decision of 27 November 1996)?.

Noting that the provision does not refer to specific amounts (see Cumber v. The United Kingdom, no. 28779/95, Commission Decision of 27 November 1996), the Court considers that, in principle, an award of EUR 150 for a three-day detention would not be entirely disproportionate (see by contrast, Ganea v. Moldova, no. 2474/06, § 30, 17 May 2011, where EUR 63 was considered too little for a three-day detention; see also Attard v. Malta (dec.), no. 46750/99, 28 September 2000, where the equivalent of EUR 230 - without an order for costs - was found proportionate in respect of detention of some hours).