Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.04.2009 «Дело Докуев и другие (Dokuyev and others) против России» [англ.]

the part related to the work of lawyers other than those whose names had been specified in the power of attorney.
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. As regards the Government's objection, the Court notes that the applicants were represented by the SRJI. It is satisfied that the lawyers indicated in their claim formed part of the SRJI staff. Accordingly, the objection must be dismissed.
174. 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 8,000, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, 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

175. 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 Mr Magomed Dokuyev;
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 Mr Magomed Dokuyev had disappeared;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Magomed Dokuyev;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of Mr Magomed Dokuyev;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first, second and third applicants on account of their mental suffering;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Magomed Dokuyev;
8. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 6 of the Convention;
9. Holds that it is not necessary to examine the applicants' complaint under Article 8 of the Convention;
10. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention and in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Magomed Dokuyev;
11. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention as regards the alleged violation of Article 5 and as regards the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants;
12. Holds that there has been no failure to comply with the State's obligation under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the first and fifth applicants;
13. Holds that there has been a failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a) of the

> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24