Third section

A. Damage
1. Pecuniary damage
85. The applicant submitted that following the proceedings concerning 
the administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the CAO he had paid the 
fine in the amount of EUR 29 (see paragraph 25 above). He also stated that 
on 26 September 2019 the Regional Court had ordered him to pay EUR 133 
for the costs and expenses of the proceedings in which he had challenged 
the entry ban. Lastly, he claimed EUR 148 for the travel expenses incurred 
by his wife to visit him in detention and EUR 190 for his medical expenses. 
In total, he claimed EUR 500 in respect of pecuniary damage.
86. The Government contested the applicant’s claim. They stated that his 
obligation to pay the fine and cover the costs and expenses incurred by the 
national authorities in the domestic proceedings was not directly linked to 
the alleged violation. A similar argument was used against his claim for 
medical expenses, which, according to the Government, related to chronic 
illnesses he had developed before his detention.
87. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation 
found and the claim for travel and medical expenses. It therefore dismisses 
that part of the claim. On the other hand, it decides to grant the remainder of 
the claim, awarding the applicant EUR 162 in respect of pecuniary damage, 
plus any tax that may be chargeable (compare 
Bogomolova v. Russia
, 
no. 13812/09, §§ 60-62, 20 June 2017, and 
Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia
, 
nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 107-10, 30 April 2019).
2. Non-pecuniary damage
88. The applicant also claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary 
damage.
89. The Government argued that the claim was excessive and 
inconsistent with the Court’s awards in similar cases.
90. Taking into account the parties’ submissions, the violations found, 
the Court grants the applicant’s claim in full. It awards him EUR 10,000 in 
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to 
him.

---

USMANOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
18