a result of the loss of their family members, the indifference shown by the authorities towards them and the failure to provide any information about the fate of their close relatives.
103. The Government found these amounts exaggerated.
104. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of the applicants' relatives. The applicants themselves have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards to the first and second applicants jointly EUR 60,000 and to the third applicant EUR 60,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
C. Costs and expenses
105. The applicants also claimed EUR 5,600 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. They listed four lawyers who had worked in 2004, 2005 and 2008 on this complaint and asked to be reimbursed for the costs of translation.
106. The Government left the issue of costs to the Court's discretion.
107. The Court may make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far that they were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], No. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V and Sawicka v. Poland, No. 37645/97, § 54, 1 October 2002). In the present case the Court notes that the initial powers of attorney were issued in respect of two lawyers of the International Protection Centre, Mrs Moskalenko and Mrs Arutyunyan, who prepared the initial application form. In February 2005 the first and the third applicants issued powers of attorney for Mrs Mikhaylova and Mr Magomadov. The applicants' observations were submitted by Mrs Moskalenko and Mrs Mikhaylova. The Court is unable to award any costs allegedly incurred by Mr Magomadov (the claim of EUR 2,000) in the absence of any information about his involvement in the preparation of the case. The Court awards to the applicants the global sum of EUR 3,600, less the sum of EUR 850 received in legal aid from the Council of Europe.
D. Default interest
108. 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. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev;
3. 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 Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev disappeared;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Article 2 of the Convention;
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from 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 date of settlement:
(i) EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the first and the second applicants jointly;
(ii) EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros), plus any tax that may
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
