Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.10.2009 «Дело Сатабаева (Satabayeva) против России» [англ.]

t has already found this reference insufficient to justify refusal (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 123).
160. Referring to the importance of a respondent Government's cooperation in Convention proceedings, and mindful of the difficulties associated with the establishment of facts in cases of such a nature, the Court finds that the Government fell short of their obligations under Article 38 § 1 of the Convention because of their failure to submit copies of the documents requested in respect of the disappearance of Yusup Satabayev.

VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

161. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

162. The applicant did not submit any claims for pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, she claimed EUR 100,000 for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her son, the indifference shown by the authorities towards him and the failure to provide any information about his fate.
163. The Government found the amounts claimed to be exaggerated.
164. 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 applicant's son. The Court accepts that she has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards the applicant EUR 35,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

B. Costs and expenses

165. The applicant also claimed EUR 5,607 and 1,445 roubles (RUB) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. She submitted a copy of the contract with her representative and an itemised schedule of costs and expenses, which included interviews with the applicant and the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court at a rate of EUR 50 per hour. She also submitted an invoice for translation expenses for the amount of EUR 512 and a postal invoice for the amount of RUB 1,445. The applicant also claimed EUR 333 for administrative expenses.
166. The Government disputed the reasonableness and the justification of the amounts claimed under this head. They further pointed out that it had not been shown that the applicant had actually incurred all the expenses claimed. They also objected to the representative's request to transfer the award for legal representation directly into his account.
167. The Court may make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were 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).
168. Having regard to the details of the contract between the applicant and her representative and the information submitted, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicant's representative. Further, the Court notes that this case was rather complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation. Accordingly, it accepts that the costs and expenses incurred for legal representation were necessary.
169. Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives' accounts (see, for example, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII, and Imakayeva, cited above).
170. Having regard to the details of the

> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21