hat these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
189. 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 at the same time, that, as the joint procedure was followed in the present case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention), the applicants' representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. Moreover, the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit the case file. The Court thus doubts that research and legal drafting were necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the representatives.
190. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court finds it appropriate to award under this head EUR 4,500, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, the award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.
D. Default interest
191. 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 the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the applicants' complaints under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention;
2. Dismisses the Government's objection regarding locus standi;
3. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
4. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention, as well as the complaint concerning the applicants' mental suffering under Article 3 of the Convention, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov;
6. 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 Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had disappeared;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first, second, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants on account of their mental and emotional suffering;
8. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth applicants;
9. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov;
10. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
11. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov;
12. Holds that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants;
13. 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 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage to the ninth, tenth, eleventh a
> 1 2 3 ... 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
