ivil remedies suggested by the Government, has consequently been undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
129. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
130. As regards the applicants' reference to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the Court considers that in the circumstances no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, § 119, 15 November 2007, and Aziyevy v. Russia, No. 77626/01, § 118, 20 March 2008).
VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
131. 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
132. The applicants did not submit any claims in respect of pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their family members Bilkis Askhabayeva and Sarali Seriyev, the indifference shown by the authorities towards them and the failure to provide any information about the fate of Sarali Seriyev.
133. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
134. The Court notes that it has found inadmissible the applicants' complaints concerning the death of Bilkis Askhabayeva and that in respect of their complaints concerning Sarali Seriyev a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention was established. The applicants themselves have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in connection with their relative's disappearance. The Court thus accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards the applicants jointly EUR 60,000 plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
B. Costs and expenses
135. 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 and experts. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 9,450.
136. The Government did not dispute the reasonableness and justification for the amounts claimed under this head.
137. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A No. 324).
138. Having regard to the details of the information and legal representation contract submitted by the applicants, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
139. As to whether the costs and expenses incurred 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 the admissibility and merits in
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
