Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.02.2009 «Дело Хайдаева и другие (Khaydayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

EUR 35,000, to the third and fourth applicants jointly EUR 70,000, to the fifth and sixth applicants jointly EUR 35,000 and to the seventh and eighth applicants jointly EUR 35,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

C. Costs and expenses

169. 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, 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 expenses in the amount of EUR 88.04, as certified by invoices, and administrative expenses in the amount of EUR 545.89. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 8,432.43.
170. The Government did not dispute the details of the calculations submitted by the applicants, but pointed out that they should be entitled to the reimbursement of their costs and expenses only in so far as it had been shown that they had been actually incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see Skorobogatova v. Russia, No. 33914/02, § 61, 1 December 2005). They also objected to the part of the applicants' representatives' claim related to the work of lawyers other than those specified in the authority form.
171. 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).
172. Having regard to the details available, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives. 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, due to the application of Article 29 § 3, the applicants' representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. The Court thus doubts that the legal drafting was necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the 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 the applicants' claim were members 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 EUR 6,000, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and reject it;
2. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention admissible and 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' complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of their relatives and under Article 14 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been

> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22