that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. Having regard to its above conclusions, it finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of Adlan Dovtayev and the loss by his wife and children of the financial support which he could have provided. Considering the fact that Adlan Dovtayev was not employed at the time of his abduction, the Court finds it appropriate to award EUR 2,000 to the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants jointly in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
181. The applicants claimed compensation for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their family members and the indifference shown by the authorities towards them. The first, second, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants claimed EUR 50,000 each, while the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth applicants claimed EUR 20,000 each under this head.
182. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
183. 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 first, second, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants have been found victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It finds it appropriate to award to the first and second applicants EUR 34,000 jointly, the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants EUR 34,000 jointly and to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth applicants EUR 500 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
C. Costs and expenses
184. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research and legal drafting at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for SRJI senior staff. They also claimed translation fees and courier mail fees confirmed by relevant invoices and administrative expenses unsupported by any evidence. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses relating to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 8,806.20.
185. 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 six lawyers, three 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 via courier service.
186. 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 six 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 six 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 via courier service.
187. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' relative were actually incurred (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
188. Having regard to the details of the information, the Court is satisfied t
> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
