Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Магомадова (Magomadova) против России» [англ.]

rs that in the circumstances no separate issues arise in respect of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, § 119, 15 November 2007, and Aziyevy v. Russia, No. 77626/01, § 118, 20 March 2008).

IX. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

178. 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

179. The applicant did not submit any claims for pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, she stated that she had lost her son and endured stress, frustration and helplessness in relation to her son's abduction, aggravated by the authorities' inactivity in the investigation of those events for several years. She left the determination of the amount of compensation to the Court.
180. The Government submitted that finding a violation of the Convention would be adequate just satisfaction in the applicant's case.
181. 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 applicant herself has been found 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 findings of violations. It awards the applicant 35,000 euros (EUR) plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

B. Costs and expenses

182. The applicant was represented by lawyers from the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicant's legal representation amounted to EUR 2,600 (1,712 pounds sterling (GBP)). They submitted the following breakdown of costs:
(a) GBP 400 for four hours of legal work by a United Kingdom-based lawyer at a rate of GBP 100 per hour;
(b) GBP 1,137 for translation costs; and
(c) GBP 175 for administrative and postal costs.
183. The Government did not dispute the reasonableness and the justification of the amounts claimed under this heading.
184. 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).
185. Having regard to the details of the submitted documentation, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicant's representatives.
186. 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. The Court thus has no doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the representatives.
187. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant's representatives, the Court awards them the amount as claimed of EUR 2,600 together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, the net award to be paid in pounds sterling into the representatives' bank account in the UK, as identified by the applicant.

C. Default interest

188. 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 2 3 ... 21 22 23