Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.04.2009 «Дело Малсагова и другие (Malsagova and others) против России» [англ.]

oubt that the five lawyers mentioned in the applicants' claims for costs and expenses took part in the preparation of the applicants' observations on the merits of the case. Moreover, there are no grounds to conclude that the applicants were not entitled to send their submissions to the Court via courier mail.
170. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary and reasonable (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], No. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI).
171. Having regard to the details of the information available, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
172. 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. It notes, however, that the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit the case file. The Court thus doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the applicants' representatives.
173. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants and acting on an equitable basis, the Court awards them the amount of EUR 7,500, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, plus any 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

174. 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 preliminary objection;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Saydi Malsagov;
3. 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 in which Saydi Malsagov had disappeared;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first, fourth and seventh applicants on account of their mental suffering;
5. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the second, third, fifth and sixth applicants;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Saydi Malsagov;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
8. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention as regards the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 5;
9. Holds that there has been a failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention in that the Government have refused to submit documents requested by the Court;
10. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage to the first applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(ii) EUR 27,000 (twenty-seven thousand euros) to the first applicant, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to the fourth and seventh applicants each and EUR 750 (seven hundred and fifty euros) to the second, third, fifth and sixth applicants each in

> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21