Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Московец (Moskovets) против России» [англ.]

s with his lawyer and receipts showing that the money had been paid, claimed 130,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for legal fees incurred during the proceedings before the domestic courts and RUB 350,000 for legal fees incurred before the Court.
123. The Government expressed doubts as to whether the costs and expenses claimed by the applicant were actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable as to quantum.
124. The Court reiterates that only such costs and expenses as were actually and necessarily incurred in connection with the violation or violations found, and are reasonable as to quantum, are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Sahin v. Germany [GC], No. 30943/96, § 105, ECHR 2003-VIII). The Court observes that the applicant was represented by a lawyer in the domestic proceedings, which involved complex issues, and required qualified legal advice. The Court further observes that in October 2005 the applicant issued the same lawyer with authority to represent his interests in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. It is clear from the length and detail of the pleadings submitted by the applicant, including extensive references to the Court's case-law, that a great deal of work was carried out on his behalf. Having regard to the material in its possession, the Court awards the applicant EUR 12,500 for his legal representation in the domestic proceedings and before the Court plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.

C. Default interest

125. 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. Declares admissible
(a) the complaint under Article 5 § 1 (c) concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant's detention from 1 July 2002 to 30 April 2004;
(b) the complaint under Article 5 § 3 concerning the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention;
(c) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the allegedly unlawful composition of the trial court;
(d) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant;
and inadmissible the remainder of the application;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 1 July to 2 December 2002 and from 30 December 2002 to 30 April 2004;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention from 2 December to 30 December 2002;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unlawful composition of the trial court;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of an excessive length of proceedings against the applicant;
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(ii) EUR 12,500 (twelve thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal

> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19