Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 26.11.2009 "Дело "Устарханова (Ustarkhanova) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

related to the legal representation of the applicant amounted to EUR 6,075.
127. The Government did not dispute the reasonableness and the justification of the amounts claimed under this heading.
128. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant's representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
129. Having regard to the details of the contract, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicant's representatives.
130. 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. 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. In addition, the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit documents from the case file. Therefore, the Court doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the representatives.
131. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant and acting on an equitable basis, the Court awards her the amount of EUR 5,500 together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, the net award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicant.

D. Default interest

132. 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 strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the complaints lodged under Article 14 of the Convention;
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, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention admissible;
4. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Balavdi Ustarkhanov;
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 Balavdi Ustarkhanov disappeared;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Balavdi Ustarkhanov;
8. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 8 of the Convention regarding the applicant's right to respect for family life;
9. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
10. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3, 5 and 8;
11. 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 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage to the ap

> 1 2 3 ... 34 35 36