authorities' inactivity in the investigation of their kidnapping for several years. They left the determination of the amount of compensation to the Court.
143. The Government submitted that finding a violation of the Convention would be adequate just satisfaction in the applicants' case.
144. 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 EUR 60,000 to the first and the third applicants jointly, and EUR 60,000 to the fourth applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
C. Costs and expenses
145. The applicants were represented by lawyers from the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 2,115 or 1,511 pounds sterling (GBP). They submitted the following breakdown of costs:
(a) EUR 1,260 (GBP 900) for nine hours of research and drafting legal documents submitted to the Court at a rate of GBP 100 per hour;
(b) EUR 855 (GBP 611) for administrative, postal and translation costs.
146. The Government did not dispute the details of the calculations submitted by the applicants.
147. 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, cited above, § 220).
148. Having regard to the details of the information in its possession, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
149. As to whether the costs and expenses were necessary, the Court notes that this case was rather complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation. The Court also notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicants' representatives' accounts (see, for example, {Toycu}, cited above, § 158; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva, cited above).
150. In these circumstances, and having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court awards EUR 2,115 plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the United Kingdom, as identified by the applicants.
D. Default interest
151. 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 strike out the application in so far as it concerns the complaints of the second applicant (Ms Raminat Zhansayeva);
2. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
3. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov;
5. 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 Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
