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

d that these rates are reasonable. It notes at the same time that although the applicants furnished a fee note referring to the amount of GBP 500 in respect of Mr Bowring's services, they failed to substantiate their claims in respect of the services of Ms Evans. Having said this, it considers, in respect of the remainder of the applicants' claims under this head, that those costs and expenses have been actually and necessarily incurred.
173. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court awards them the amount of EUR 2,001.89, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, the net award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the UK, as identified by the applicants.

E. Default interest

174. 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. Dismisses the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of civil domestic remedies;
2. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
3. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3 (concerning the applicants' moral suffering), 5 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Bashir Mutsolgov;
5. 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 Bashir Mutsolgov disappeared;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering endured by the first to fourth applicants;
7. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the fifth applicant;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Bashir Mutsolgov;
9. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2;
10. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5;
11. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months of 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 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the first and second applicants jointly, EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the fourth and fifth applicants jointly in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) to the first and second applicants jointly, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to the third applicant, and EUR 35,000 (thirty five thousand euros) to the fourth and fifth applicants jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(iii) EUR 2,001.89 (two thousand and one euros and eighty nine cents) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the UK;
(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;
12. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.

> 1 2 3 ... 27 28 29