Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2010 «Дело Сасита Исраилова и другие (Sasita Israilova and others) против России» [англ.]

ary damage

152. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed that they had suffered severe emotional distress, anxiety and trauma as a result of the disappearance of their two close relatives and on account of the indifference demonstrated by the Russian authorities during the investigation into these events. The applicants sought the overall amount of EUR 150,000 which comprised the following claims:
(i) the first two applicants each claimed EUR 40,000;
(ii) the third and fifth applicants each claimed EUR 15,000;
(iii) the fourth applicant claimed EUR 30,000;
(iv) the sixth applicant claimed EUR 10,000.
The seventh applicant did not submit any claim under this head.
153. The Government considered the applicants' claims to be unsubstantiated and excessive and submitted that, should the Court find a violation of the applicants' rights, the finding of a violation would suffice.
154. The Court observes that it has found a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unlawful detention and disappearance of the applicants' relatives, the ineffective investigation into the matter, their mental suffering and the absence of effective remedies to secure domestic redress for those violations. The applicants must have suffered anguish and distress as a result of all these circumstances, which cannot be compensated by a mere finding of a violation. Having regard to these considerations, the Court awards, on an equitable basis, EUR 25,000 to the first applicant, EUR 25,000 to the second applicant, EUR 15,000 to the third applicant, EUR 30,000 to the fourth applicant, EUR 15,000 to the fifth applicant and EUR 10,000 to the sixth applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts.

B. Costs and expenses

155. The applicants were represented by lawyers from the SRJI. They submitted a detailed invoice of costs and expenses that included research, interviews and the costs involved in obtaining documentary evidence in Ingushetia and Moscow, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour; the drafting of legal documents submitted to the domestic authorities, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for the SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for the SRJI experts; and the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court, at a rate of EUR 150 per hour. The aggregate claim in respect of the costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 8,790.31, comprising EUR 8,100 for fifty-three hours spent by the SRJI staff on preparing and representing the applicants' case, EUR 51.06 for translation, EUR 72.25 for international courier post to the Court and EUR 567 for administrative costs (7% of legal fees).
156. The Government pointed out that the applicants were only entitled to reimbursement of costs and expenses that had actually been incurred and were reasonable. They further argued that two of the SRJI's lawyers who had signed the applicants' observations on the merits had not been named in the powers of attorney.
157. The Court notes that the applicants issued a power of attorney in respect of the SRJI. It is satisfied that the lawyers indicated in their claim formed part of the SRJI staff. Accordingly, the objection must be dismissed.
158. The Court reiterates that costs and expenses will not be awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were actually and necessarily incurred, and are also reasonable as to quantum (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], No. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI). The Court, having regard to the documents submitted by the applicants, is satisfied that their claim was substantiated. It further notes that this case has been relatively complex and has required a certain amount of research work. On the other hand, once the preparation of the initial submis

> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23