Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 «Дело Абдурзакова и Абдурзаков (Abdurzakova and Abdurzakov) против России» [англ.]

cants had given authority to act to the SRJI and its four lawyers. The applicants' observations and claims for just satisfaction were signed by six persons in total. The names of three of them appeared in the powers of attorney, while three other lawyers collaborated with the SRJI. In such circumstances the Court sees no reasons to doubt that the six lawyers mentioned in the applicants' claims for costs and expenses took part in preparation of the applicants' observations. Moreover, there are no grounds to conclude that the applicants were not entitled to send their submissions to the Court via courier mail.
155. The Court now has to establish whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' representatives were actually incurred and whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
156. Having regard to the details of the information submitted, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
157. 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, due to the application of Article 29 § 3 in the present case, the applicants' representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. Furthermore, 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 the legal drafting was necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the representatives.
158. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court finds it appropriate to award them EUR 4,500, 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 the applicants, the award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.

C. Default interest

159. 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' complaints under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention;
2. Dismisses the Government's objection regarding abuse of the right of petition;
3. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
4. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Vakha Abdurzakov;
6. 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 Vakha Abdurzakov had disappeared;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Vakha Abdurzakov;
9. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
10. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation of Article 3;
11. Holds
(a) that the respondent

> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20