num and that he could have counted on receiving 30% of her wages. The second applicant claimed a total of RUB 183,801.71 (approximately 4,100 euros (EUR)) under this head.
148. The Government regarded these claims as unfounded and noted that the second applicant had been granted a pension for loss of the breadwinner by the domestic courts.
149. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. Having regard to its above conclusions that there has been no violation of Article 2 in its substantive aspect, the Court finds that there is no direct causal link between the alleged violation of Khava Magomadova's right to life and the loss by the second applicant of the financial support which she could have provided. Accordingly, it makes no award under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
150. The applicants claimed EUR 40,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their wife and mother and the indifference shown by the authorities towards them.
151. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
152. The Court has found a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect. It thus accepts that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation. It finds it appropriate to award under this heading the applicants EUR 5,000 each, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts.
C. Costs and expenses
153. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research at a rate of EUR 50 per hour and 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. They also claimed courier service expenses and translation fees confirmed by relevant invoices, as well as administrative costs that were not supported by any documents. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 7,127.07.
154. The Government disputed the reasonableness and the justification of the amounts claimed under this head. They also submitted that the applicants' claims for just satisfaction had been signed by five lawyers, two of whom had not been mentioned in the powers of attorney issued by the applicants. They also doubted that it had been necessary to send the correspondence to the Registry by courier service.
155. The Court notes that the applicants had given authority to act to the SRJI and its three lawyers. The applicants' observations and claims for just satisfaction were signed by five persons in total. The names of three of these persons appeared in the powers of attorney, while three other lawyers worked with the SRJI. In these circumstances, the Court sees no reasons to doubt that the five lawyers mentioned in the applicants' claims for costs and expenses took part in the preparation of the applicants' observations. Moreover, there are no grounds to conclude that the applicants were not entitled to send their submissions to the Court by courier service.
156. The Court now has to establish whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' relative were actually incurred and whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
157. Having regard to the details of the information submitted, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
158. Further, it has to be establis
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
