5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Novocheboksarsk. 6.  The facts of the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody were established in a judgment of the Novocheboksarsk Town Court of the Chuvash Republic (“the Town Court”) of 22 August 2008 and upheld on 11 November 2008 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic. The facts are as follows. 7.  On 10 April 2007 the applicant was stopped by police officers on a street near his home and taken to district police station no. 1 of Novocheboksarsk to have his identity checked. At the police station a district police officer (участковый уполномоченный милиции), Officer M. from the Novocheboksarsk town police station, who wore a police uniform, threatened the applicant by saying that a criminal case against him would be opened, grabbed him by his clothing, violently pushed him backwards against a wall several times and punched his left ear. 8.  According to a forensic medical expert’s report, the applicant had a traumatic rupture of the left eardrum with a haemorrhage, which caused a short-term – lasting between six and twenty-one days – health disorder. Accordingly, this qualified as “insignificant” health damage. 9.  Officer M. was convicted under Article 286 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code (abuse of power with the use of violence) and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a two‑year ban on exercising official power. 10.  In January 2009 the applicant brought a civil claim in the amount of 312,487 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of Finance of the Chuvash Republic in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He argued, inter alia, that his ill‑treatment by the police had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), and that, in accordance with the Plenary Supreme Court Resolution no. 5 of 10 October 2003, the domestic courts were to apply the Convention in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”). He also argued that, in calculating the amount of compensation due in respect of non‑pecuniary damage for a violation of the Convention, the domestic courts therefore had to take into account the sums awarded by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention in similar cases. He stated that his claim had been calculated based on the sum awarded by the Court in the case of Ribitsch, in which a violation of Article 3 of the Convention had been found on account of inhuman and degrading treatment in police custody (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336). 11.  On 6 April 2009 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s civil claim in part. It noted that, under Article 61 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment in a criminal case which had become enforceable was binding on a court examining the civil-law consequences of the acts of a person against whom the judgment had been delivered, in so far as it established whether those acts had taken place and whether they had been committed by that person. Article 53 of the Constitution and Articles 151 and 1069 of the Civil Code provided for State liability for harm caused to individuals by State agents. Relying on Articles 1099-1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and section 8 of the Plenary Supreme Court Resolution no. 10 of 20 December 1994, the Town Court held that RUB 20,000 would be just and reasonable satisfaction for the applicant’s mental suffering as a result of his ill-treatment by the police officer, treatment which had undermined his honour and dignity and caused him insignificant health damage. 12.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 6 May 2009 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic upheld the judgment on appeal, fully endorsing the Town Court’s calculation of the amount of compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. It disagreed with the applicant that, in determining the amount of compensation for non‑pecuniary damage, the domestic courts had to be guided by the amounts of such compensation awarded by the Court in similar cases, stating as follows:
“Indeed, in accordance with Article 15 § 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, commonly recognised principles and norms of international law and international agreements of the Russian Federation are an integral part of [the Russian Federation’s] legal system. However, this does not mean that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage determined by the European Court of Human Rights in a specific case has a binding effect on national courts examining other cases where a violation of similar norms and principles can be found. The determination of the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in specific cases is the prerogative of national courts examining such cases.”