Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Мутаева (Mutayeva) против России» [англ.]

urred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Skorobogatova v. Russia, No. 33914/02, § 61, 1 December 2005). They doubted that the amounts claimed by the applicant under this head were reasonable.
122. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
123. 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.
124. As to 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 the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit most of the case file. Furthermore, due to the application of Article 29 § 3 in the present case, the applicant's representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. The Court thus doubts that the case involved the amount of research claimed by the applicants' representatives.
125. Lastly, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives' accounts (see, for example, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII, and Imakayeva, cited above).
126. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant, the Court awards her EUR 4,000, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicant; the net award is to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicant.

C. Default interest

127. 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 as to non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Luiza Mutayeva;
4. 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 Luiza Mutayeva disappeared;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Luiza Mutayeva;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Article 2;
8. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5;
9. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, save in the case of the payment in respect of costs and expenses:
(i) EUR 50,000 (fifty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant;
(ii) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representatives' bank ac



> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet