II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n13. The applicant also submitted that he had not had at his disposal any effective remedy by which to raise his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
14. The Government observed that the applicant\u2019s right to an effective remedy with regard to Article 3 of the Convention had been respected.<\/p>\n
15. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
16. The general principles concerning the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms have been summarised in Darboe and Camara (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0193-95).<\/p>\n
17. In the above-mentioned case, the Court concluded that the Government had failed to indicate any specific remedy by which the applicant could have complained about his reception conditions in Cona and found a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
18. The Court is of the view that there is no reason to hold otherwise in the present case.<\/p>\n
19. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n20. The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage relating to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention and EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention. He also claimed EUR\u00a014,401.51 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court by each of his two legal representatives.<\/p>\n
21. The Government opposed those claims.<\/p>\n
22. The Court awards the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
23. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 4,000 covering the costs of the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n
4. Holds<\/p>\n
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts:<\/p>\n
(i) EUR\u00a05,000\u00a0(five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n
(ii) EUR\u00a04,000\u00a0(four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n
(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;<\/p>\n
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 November 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
Sophie Piquet \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n