
La Corte di Strasburgo, con la sentenza della Grande Camera del 12/11/2013, caso Soderman c. Svezia (ricorso n. 5786/08) offre un paradigmatico esempio di applicazione dell'art. 41 CEDU.
LEGGI DI SEGUITO UNO STRALCIO DELLA SENTENZA ...
... e per far meglio valere il tuo diritto al libero lavoro intellettuale, aderisci e invita altri ad aderire al social network www.concorrenzaeavvocatura.ning.com e aderisci al gruppo aperto "concorrenzaeavvocatura" su facebook (contano già centinaia di adesioni).
Unisciti ai tanti che rivendicano una vera libertà di lavoro intellettuale per gli outsiders e, finalmente, il superamento del corporativismo nelle professioni ! .
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
118. 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
119. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.
120. The Government found that amount excessive. In their view, an amount not exceeding a total of EUR 3,000 would be sufficient to compensate the applicant.
121. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered non‑pecuniary damage that is not sufficiently compensated for by the mere finding of a violation of Article 8. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
122. The applicant claimed SEK 516,410 (corresponding to approximately EUR 60,500) including value added tax (VAT) for costs and expenses, which comprised:
i) SEK 146,250 for lawyer’s fees incurred in the proceedings before the Chamber, equal to 65 hours at an hourly rate of SEK 1,800 (exclusive of VAT);
ii) SEK 353,750 for lawyer’s fees incurred in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, equal to 141.50 hours at an hourly rate of SEK 2,000 (exclusive of VAT);
iii) SEK 11,021 for a legal opinion obtained;
iv) SEK 5,389 for travel costs and an allowance for expenses incurred by her three counsel in attending the hearing before the Grand Chamber.
In connection with the latter item, the applicant also claimed compensation for expenses amounting to EUR 3,260.60 for flight tickets and accommodation costs incurred by her and her three counsel in attending the hearing before the Grand Chamber.
123. The Government found the lawyer’s fees excessive both as to the hours and the hourly rate. They considered a total amount of 80 hours reasonable as well as an hourly rate corresponding to the Swedish hourly legal aid fee, which for 2013 was SEK 1,242 (VAT excluded). Regarding the other costs and expenses, the Government found that the cost of the legal opinion had been unnecessarily incurred. They did not object to the remainder of the claims as such.
124. According to the Court’s established case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum.
125. In respect of the lawyer’s fees, be this before the Chamber or the Grand Chamber, the Court can accept an hourly rate as claimed by the applicant. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 25,000 including VAT (see, for example, X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 163, ECHR 2013; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 245, ECHR 2012; and Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, § 117, ECHR 2011).
126. Turning to the other costs and expenses before the Grand Chamber, it appears that the amount included plane tickets for five persons. The Court can only award travel expenses for the applicant and her three counsel. It therefore awards the applicant EUR 4,700 under this head.
C. Default interest
127. 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
1. Holds, by sixteen votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
2. Holds, by sixteen votes to one,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 29,700 (twenty-nine thousand seven hundred euros) under the head of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in this respect;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
3. Dismisses, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 12 November 2013.
Erik Fribergh Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
... e per far meglio valere il tuo diritto al libero lavoro intellettuale, aderisci e invita altri ad aderire al social network www.concorrenzaeavvocatura.ning.com e aderisci al gruppo aperto "concorrenzaeavvocatura" su facebook (contano già centinaia di adesioni).
Unisciti ai tanti che rivendicano una vera libertà di lavoro intellettuale per gli outsiders e, finalmente, il superamento del corporativismo nelle professioni ! .
| < Prec. | Succ. > |
|---|





