Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 «Дело Медова (Medova) против России» [англ.]

o had allegedly threatened her or to provide other information that could help to identify him. Furthermore, she had not brought her allegations to the attention of the prosecuting authorities, which proved that they were fictitious.
136. The applicant maintained the complaint and argued that the Government's objections should be dismissed.
137. The Court notes that the complaint of intimidation is not corroborated by any evidence. Accordingly, it finds that in this respect there was no failure to comply with the respondent State's obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

138. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

139. The applicant did not make any claims for compensation for pecuniary damage. She claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage, arising from her feelings of fear, distress, anguish and uncertainty about the fate of her husband. She left the determination of the award to the Court's discretion.
140. In the Government's view, the finding of a violation should constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the present case. However, should the Court decide otherwise, the award should not exceed a reasonable amount.
141. The Court has found violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the State's failure to comply with its positive obligation to protect the life of the applicant's husband. The Court accepts that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. The Court awards the applicant EUR 35,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

B. The applicant's request for an investigation

142. The applicant also requested, referring to Article 41 of the Convention, that "an independent investigation which would comply with the requirements of the Convention be conducted into the disappearance of Mr Adam Medov". She relied in this connection on the cases of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], No. 71503/01, §§ 202 - 203, ECHR 2004-II) and Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ((preliminary objection) [GC], No. 26307/95, § 84, ECHR 2003-VI).
143. The Court notes that in Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, §§ 131 - 134, 15 November 2007, in comparable circumstances, the Court decided that it was most appropriate to leave it to the respondent Government to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order in order to discharge their legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention. The Court does not see any exceptional circumstances which would lead it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

C. Costs and expenses

144. The applicant was represented by lawyers from the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to her legal representation amounted to 6,420 euros (EUR) and 813,25 pounds sterling (GBP). She requested the award to be transferred directly into her representatives' account in the United Kingdom. The applicant submitted the following breakdown of costs:
(a) EUR 3,000 for fifty hours of research in Chechnya and Ingushetia at a rate of EUR 60 per hour;
(b) EUR 3,000 for fifty hours of drafting legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities at a rate of EUR 60 per hour by the lawyers in Moscow;
(c) GBP 500 for five hours of legal work by a United Kingdom-based lawyer at a rate of GBP 100 per hour;
(d) GBP

> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20