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

nable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
134. 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 at the same time that, as the admissibility and merits of the application in the present case were examined together (Article 29 § 3), the applicants' representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. The Court thus doubts that legal drafting was necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the representatives. The Court also notes that the applicants did not submit any documents in support of their claim for administrative costs.
135. 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 5,500 together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, the net award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.

D. Default interest

136. 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. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the applicants' complaint under Article 14 of the Convention;
2. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection concerning the non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
3. Declares the complaints under Article 2, Article 3 in respect of the applicants, Article 5 and Article 13 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev;
5. 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 Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev had disappeared;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
9. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5;
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, to be converted into Russian roubles at the date of settlement, save for the payment in respect of costs and expenses:
(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicants jointly;
(ii) EUR 35,000 (thirty five thousand euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicants jointly;
(iii) EUR 5,500 (five thousand five hundred euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands;
(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 lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default

> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19