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

he other two lawyers worked with the SRJI. In such circumstances the Court sees no reason to doubt that the five lawyers mentioned in the applicants' claims for costs and expenses took part in the preparation of the applicants' observations. It also sees no reason to conclude that the applicants were not entitled to send their submissions to the Court via courier service.
158. The Court has to establish, first, whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' relatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
159. Having regard to the details of the information supplied, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
160. As to the necessity of the expenses, 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, owing to the application of the joint examination procedure (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 the case file. The Court thus doubts that the legal drafting was necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the representatives.
161. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court finds it appropriate to award them EUR 4,500, 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 identified by the applicants.

D. Default interest

162. 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 the alleged lack of locus standi;
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 Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev, as well as the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev;
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 of Umar Zabiyev's death;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev on account of his ill-treatment by State servicemen;
7. Holds that no separate finding is necessary under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the alleged deficiencies in the investigation into the ill-treatment of Umar Zabiyev;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant on account of her ill-treatment by State servicemen;
9. 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 the first applicant;
10. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering;
11. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning Umar Zabiyev and of Article 3 of th

> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20