Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Муцолгова и другие (Mutsolgova and others) против России» [англ.]

o elderly parents (see Imakayeva, cited above, § 213). The Court notes at the same time that it has some reservations concerning the substantiation by the applicants of the amounts allegedly earned by their relative unofficially.
163. Having regard to the applicants' submissions and the materials in its possession and accepting that it is reasonable to assume that their relative would eventually have had some earnings resulting in financial support for his family, the Court awards 4,000 euros (EUR) to the first and second applicants jointly and EUR 6,000 to the fourth and fifth applicants jointly.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

164. The applicants claimed jointly EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their family member, the indifference shown by the investigating authorities and the failure to provide any information about the fate of their close relative.
165. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
166. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of the applicants' relative. The first to fourth applicants themselves have been found to have been victims of a violation of Articles 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards to the first and second applicants jointly EUR 20,000, to the third applicant EUR 5,000 and to the fourth and fifth applicants jointly EUR 35,000, plus any tax that may be charged thereon.

C. The applicants' request for an investigation

167. The applicants also requested, referring to Article 41 of the Convention, that "an independent investigation which would comply with the requirements of the Convention be conducted" into the disappearance of Bashir Mutsolgov. They relied in this connection on the cases of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], No. 71503/01, §§ 202 - 203, ECHR 2004-II).
168. The Court notes that in several similar cases it has decided that it was most appropriate to leave it to the respondent Government to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order in order to discharge their legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, §§ 131 - 134, 15 November 2007, and Medova, cited above, §§ 142 - 143). It does not see any exceptional circumstances which would lead it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

D. Costs and expenses

169. The applicants were represented by lawyers from the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to GBP 3,054.25 and the applicants asked that that amount be paid into their representatives' account in the UK. They submitted the following breakdown of costs:
(a) GBP 2,000 for 20 hours of research and drafting legal documents submitted to the Court by Mr B. Bowring and Ms J. Evans at a rate of GBP 100 per hour;
(b) GBP 879.25 for translation costs, as certified by invoices, and
(c) GBP 175 for administrative and postal costs.
170. The Government submitted that reimbursement of costs could be ordered by the Court only if they had been actually incurred and were reasonable as to quantum.
171. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' relative were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A No. 324).
172. Having regard to the details of the information submitted by the applicants, the Court is satisfie

> 1 2 3 ... 26 27 28 29