Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Гакиев и Гакиева (Gakiyev and Gakiyeva) против России» [англ.]

nd second applicants claimed 310,639.45 and 354,765.33 Russian roubles (RUB) respectively (approximately 8,800 and 9,900 euros (EUR)). The applicants also claimed damages in the amount of RUB 147,113 (approximately EUR 4,100) for their destroyed house.
172. The Government regarded these claims as unfounded.
173. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicants' relatives and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. However, the Court is not persuaded that the applicants, who have not yet reached their respective retirement age, have any legal basis to claim subsistence from Idris Gakiyev. Moreover, the Court emphasises that the applicants have never raised before it a complaint related to the alleged violation of their property rights and finds no causal link between the above violations of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention and the damage the applicants sustained as a result of the destruction of their house. It therefore dismisses the applicants' claims under this head.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

174. The applicants claimed EUR 50,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their son and the indifference shown by the authorities towards them.
175. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
176. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicants' late son, as well as violations of Article 3 in respect of the applicants themselves. The Court thus accepts that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It finds it appropriate to award the applicants jointly EUR 35,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

C. Costs and expenses

177. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research at a rate of EUR 50 per hour and the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for SRJI senior staff. They also claimed translation fees, confirmed by invoices, and administrative expenses that were not supported by any evidence. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 9,131.30.
178. The Government submitted that the applicants' claims for just satisfaction had been signed by five lawyers, while two of them had not been mentioned in the powers of attorney issued by the applicants.
179. The Court points out that the applicants had given authority to act to the SRJI and its three lawyers. The applicants' claims for just satisfaction were signed by five persons in total. The names of three of them appeared in the powers of attorney, while two other lawyers collaborated with the SRJI. In such circumstances the Court sees no reasons to doubt that the five lawyers mentioned in the applicants' claims for costs and expenses took part in the preparation of the applicants' observations.
180. The Court has to establish 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).
181. Having regard to the details of the information, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
182. 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 no

> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 23