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

138,25 for translation costs, as certified by invoices;
(e) GBP 175 for administrative and postal costs incurred by the London office; and
(f) EUR 420 for administrative and postal costs incurred by the Moscow office.
145. The Government did not dispute the details of the calculations submitted by the applicant, but pointed out that she should be entitled to the reimbursement of her 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).
146. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant 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).
147. 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 applicant's 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. Accordingly, it accepts that the expenses incurred were necessary.
148. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant, the Court awards the amount as claimed, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, the net award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the United Kingdom, as identified by the applicant.

D. Default interest

149. 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

1. Dismisses unanimously the Government's preliminary objection;
2. Holds unanimously 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 unanimously that no separate issues arise under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the Government's refusal to submit documents requested by the Court;
4. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the State's failure to comply with its positive obligation to protect the life of Mr Adam Medov;
5. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Mr Adam Medov disappeared;
6. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Adam Medov;
7. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention;
8. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
9. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention;
10. Holds unanimously that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention;
11. Holds unanimously that there has been no failure to comply with the State's obligation under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the alleged intimidation of the applicant;
12. Holds unanimously
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the follo

> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20