Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.09.2009 «Дело Асадулаева и другие (Asadulayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

nts' relatives 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).
146. Having regard to the details of the information and legal representation contracts submitted by the applicants, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
147. Further, it has to be established whether the costs and expenses incurred for legal representation were necessary. The Court notes that this case was rather complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation. It notes, however, that the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit the case file. Furthermore, due to the application of Article 29 § 3 in the present case, the applicants' representatives submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits in one set of documents. The Court thus doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the applicants' representatives.
148. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court awards them EUR 5,200, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicants; the award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as indicated by the applicants.

C. Default interest

149. 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 concerning non-exhaustion of 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 Bekman Asadulayev;
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 Bekman Asadulayev disappeared;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants' mental suffering;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Bekman Asadulayev;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
8. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5;
9. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) to the second applicant in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(ii) EUR 31,000 (thirty one thousand euros) to the second applicant, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to the first and third applicants each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(iii) EUR 5,200 (five thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest sh

> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24