Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Мудаевы (Mudayevy) против России» [англ.]

l of 21,600 euros (EUR) under this heading.
138. The Government regarded these claims as unsubstantiated. They also pointed to the existence of domestic statutory machinery for the provision of a pension for the loss of a family breadwinner.
139. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by an applicant and the violation of the Convention at issue, and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. The Court further finds that loss of earnings also applies to elderly parents and that it is reasonable to assume that Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev would eventually have had some earnings from which the first applicant would have benefited (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213). Having regard to its above conclusions, it finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the first applicant's sons and the loss by the first applicant of the financial support which they could have provided. Having regard to the applicants' submissions and the fact that Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev were not employed at the time of their apprehension, the Court awards EUR 20,000 to the first applicant in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

140. The first applicant, as the father of the disappeared Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev, claimed EUR 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering he had endured as a result of the loss of his family members, the indifference shown by the authorities towards him and the failure to provide any information about the fate of his sons. The second applicant, as the aunt of the disappeared men, claimed 50,000 EUR under this head.
141. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
142. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of the applicants' relatives. The Court thus accepts that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards 100,000 EUR to the first applicant and 20,000 EUR to the second applicant plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts.

C. Costs and expenses

143. The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Centre of Assistance to International Protection, Ms K. Moskalenko and Ms S. Davydova. The applicants submitted that the aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to their legal representation amounted to EUR 4,500.
144. The Government indicated that the applicants had not shown that the expenses claimed for legal representation had actually been incurred.
145. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
146. Having regard to the details of the information in its possession, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
147. As to whether the costs and expenses were necessary, the Court notes that this case was rather complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation.
148. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court awards them the amount of EUR 4,000 less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable thereon.

D. Default interest

149. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the Europ

> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20