Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.07.2009 «Дело Муцаева (Mutsayeva) против России» [англ.]

ed by the applicant's representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
134. Having regard to the details of the submitted documentation, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicant's representatives.
135. Further, the Court notes that this case was rather complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation. The Court thus has no doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the representatives.
136. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant's representatives, the Court awards them the amount as claimed of EUR 2,100 together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, the net award to be paid in pounds sterling into the representatives' bank account in the UK, as identified by the applicant.

C. Default interest

137. 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 domestic remedies and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Khizir Tepsurkayev;
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 Khizir Tepsurkayev 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 Khizir Tepsurkayev;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
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 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, save in the case of the payment in respect of costs and expenses:
(i) EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant;
(ii) EUR 2,100 (two thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the UK;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar






> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet