Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.05.2010 «Дело Шахабова (Shakhabova) против России» [англ.]

notes that this case was rather complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation. It notes at the same time that due to the application of Article 29 § 3 in the present case, the applicant's representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. The Court thus doubts that legal drafting was necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the representatives. Furthermore, the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit most of the case file. Hence, it is also doubtful whether research was necessary to the extent claimed by the representatives. Lastly, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives' accounts (see, for example, {Togcu}, cited above, § 158; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva, cited above).
155. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant, the Court awards her the amount of EUR 4,000, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to her, the net award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicant.

D. Default interest

156. 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 as to non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Adam Khurayev;
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 Adam Khurayev disappeared;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of applicant;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Adam Khurayev;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Article 2;
8. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5;
9. 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, save in the case of the payment in respect of costs and expenses:
(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicant;
(ii) EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant;
(iii) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands;
(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;
10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done i

> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21