the SRJI and its three lawyers. The applicants' claims for just satisfaction were signed by five persons in total. The names of three of them appeared in the powers of attorney, while two other lawyers worked with the SRJI. In such circumstances the Court sees no reason to doubt that the five lawyers mentioned in the applicants' claims for costs and expenses took part in the preparation of the applicants' observations on the merits of the case. Moreover, there are no grounds to conclude that the applicants were not entitled to send their submissions to the Court via courier mail.
144. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary and reasonable (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], No. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI).
145. Having regard to the details of the information available, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
146. Further, it has to be established whether the costs and expenses incurred for legal representation were necessary. The Court notes that this case was rather complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation. It notes, however, that the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit the entire case file. The Court thus doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the applicants' representatives.
147. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards them the amount of EUR 7,500, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. The relevant sum is to be paid into their representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.
D. Default interest
148. 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. Dismisses the Government's preliminary objection;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova;
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 Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova were killed;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants on account of mental suffering;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention;
7. Holds that there has been a failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention in that the Government have refused to submit documents requested by the Court;
8. 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:
(i) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) to the first and third applicants each in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(ii) EUR 52,500 (fifty-two thousand five hundred euros) to the first and third applicants each in respect o
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
