Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Алиева (Aliyeva) против России» [англ.]

cant's husband. The applicant herself has been found to have been a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that she has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of violations. It awards the applicant EUR 60,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

C. Costs and expenses

119. The applicant also claimed EUR 4,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court on account of the work performed by lawyers of the International Protection Centre. She enclosed no documents to support the amount claimed.
120. The Government pointed out that the applicant should be entitled to the reimbursement of their costs and expenses only in so far as it had been shown that they had been actually incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see Skorobogatova v. Russia, No. 33914/02, § 61, 1 December 2005).
121. The Court may make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far that they were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], No. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V, and Sawicka v. Poland, No. 37645/97, § 54, 1 October 2002).
122. The Court notes that the applicant enclosed no documents to corroborate the amount claimed. At the same time it observes that the applicant issued authority forms for lawyers of the International Protection Centre, who submitted an application form and observations on her behalf. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's representatives did carry out a certain amount of legal work in relation to the present application.
123. The Court further 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 applicants' representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. Furthermore, the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit most of the case file. The Court thus doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the representatives.
124. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court awards them the amount of EUR 2,500, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

D. 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 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 violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Abu Aliyev;
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 Mr Abu Aliyev disappeared;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Abu Aliyev on account of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of Mr Abu Aliyev;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant on account of her mental suffering;
8.

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17