Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.02.2009 «Дело Мешаева и другие (Meshayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

s a result of the loss of their family members, the failure to provide any information about their fate and the indifference shown by the authorities towards them.
142. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
143. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of the applicants' relatives. The first, second, fourth to seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that these applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards the applicants the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon:
(i) EUR 25,000 to the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants jointly;
(ii) EUR 10,000 to the second applicant;
(iii) EUR 35,000 to the ninth, tenth, eleventh, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants jointly.

C. Costs and expenses

144. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research and interviews in Ingushetia and Moscow, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for the work in the area of exhausting domestic remedies and of EUR 150 per hour for the drafting of submissions to the Court. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 9,553.
145. The Government disputed the reasonableness and the justification of the amounts claimed under this head. They questioned, in particular, whether all the lawyers working for the SRJI had been involved in the present case and whether it had been necessary for the applicants to rely on courier mail.
146. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A No. 324).
147. Having regard to the details of the information and legal representation contracts submitted by the applicants, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
148. The Court further notes that this case was relatively complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation. It notes, however, that the applicants did not submit any additional observations on the merits and that the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit most of the case file. The Court thus doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the representatives.
149. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court awards them the amount of EUR 6,000, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to them.

D. Default interest

150. 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 failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention in that the Government have refused to submit documents requested by the Court;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Leoma Meshayev and Bislan Saydayev;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the positive obligations under Article

> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20