Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Товсултанова (Tovsultanova) против России» [англ.]

edule of costs and expenses that included legal research and drafting, as well as administrative and translation expenses. The overall claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicant's legal representation amounted to EUR 7,718. The applicant submitted the following breakdown of costs:
(a) EUR 7,125 for 47.50 hours of interviewing and drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities, at the rate of EUR 150 per hour;
(b) EUR 145 in administrative expenses;
(c) EUR 448 in translation fees based on the rate of EUR 80 per 1000 words.
121. The Government did not dispute the reasonableness of the amounts claimed.
122. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
123. Having regard to the details of the information submitted by the applicant, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable. The Court notes that this case was rather complex and required the amount of research and preparation claimed by the applicant. It notes at the same time, that due to the application of Article 29 § 3 in the present case, the applicant's representative submitted his observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. The Court thus doubts that the legal drafting was as time-consuming as the representative claimed.
124. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant, the Court awards her the amount of EUR 5,500 together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, the award to be paid into the representative's bank account, as identified by the applicant.

C. Default interest

125. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection regarding non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaints under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive limb in respect of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Said-Magamed Tovsultanov disappeared;
5. Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant;
(ii) EUR 5,500 (five thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representative's bank account;
(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;
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 June 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of

> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18