Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Попов и Воробьев (Popov and Vorobyev) против России» [англ.]

995,500 (EUR 27,652).
103. The Government contested the claim. They noted that the expenses relating to the applicant's dental treatment had been incurred after the applicant's release from detention; that the applicant's expenses concerning kidney treatment were unsubstantiated; that the educational expenses were unnecessary; and that his claims for lost income were unsubstantiated.
104. The Court notes that there is no causal link between the violations found and the alleged loss of earnings or the need to obtain legal education. Likewise, the Court does not find it established that the expenses relating to the dental and kidney treatment were occasioned by the conditions of detention which led the Court to find a violation of Article 3. In the light of the above, the Court dismisses the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage.
(b) The second applicant
105. The second applicant claimed RUB 34,731 (EUR 964) for his dental treatment in 2001 after his release from detention.
106. The Government contested the claim. They noted that the expenses relating to the dental treatment had been incurred after the applicant's release from detention.
107. The Court does not find it established that the applicant's dental treatment was occasioned by the conditions of detention which led it to find a violation of Article 3. In the light of the above, the Court dismisses the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

108. Each of the applicants claimed RUB 288,000 (EUR 8,000) for the mental and physical suffering endured during their detention in IZ-25/1.
109. The Government contested the amounts claimed as unfounded.
110. The Court accepts that the applicants suffered humiliation and distress because of the inhuman and degrading conditions of their detention in IZ-25/1, the length of this detention and the failure of the authorities to review its lawfulness. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 8,000 as claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Costs and expenses

111. The applicants claimed RUB 2,978 (EUR 83) for postal and photocopying expenses, 500 United States dollars each for legal fees in the domestic proceedings in 2000 to 2001 and EUR 4,610 for 76 hours of legal work by the lawyers Mr M. Rachkovskiy, Ms E. Krutikova and Ms V. Bokareva from the Centre of Assistance to International Protection.
112. The Government contended that the applicants had failed to submit any documents substantiating the lawyers' fees.
113. The Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses found to have been actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, {Stasaitis} v. Lithuania, No. 47679/99, §§ 102 - 103, 21 March 2002).
114. The Court notes the applicants did not submit any documents substantiating the fees paid in the domestic proceedings. The Court further notes that the lawyers from the Centre of Assistance to International Protection represented the applicants from March 2006 and that they submitted detailed descriptions of their work on the applicants' case. Regard being had to the information in its possession and the overall amount of work done by the applicants' lawyers, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 2,000 in respect of legal costs, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable.

C. Default interest

115. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending r

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17