Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Алаудинова (Alaudinova) против России» [англ.]

/>
A. Damage

125. The applicant did not submit any claims for pecuniary damage. As to non-pecuniary damage, the applicant stated that she had lost her son and endured years of stress, frustration and helplessness as a result of his disappearance and the authorities' passive attitude. She claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, but left the determination of the amount to the Court.
126. The Government considered that no damages should be awarded to the applicant in the absence of conclusive evidence of fault by the State authorities in her son's disappearance and when the investigation was ongoing.
127. 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 applicant's son. The applicant herself has been found to have been the victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that she has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards to the applicant 35,000 euros (EUR) plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

B. Costs and expenses

128. The applicant was represented by lawyers from the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicant's legal representation amounted to EUR 1,280 or 855 pounds sterling (GBP)). They submitted the following breakdown of costs:
(a) EUR 900 (GBP 600) for 6 hours of research, drafting legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities at a rate of GBP 100 per hour;
(b) EUR 380 (GBP 255) for administrative and postal costs.
129. The Government did not dispute the details of the calculations submitted by the applicant.
130. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant's representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
131. Having regard to the details of the information in its possession, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicant's representatives.
132. 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. The Court also notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives' accounts (see, for example, {Togcu}, cited above, § 158; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, No. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...).
133. In these circumstances, and having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant, the Court awards EUR 1,280 plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the United Kingdom, as identified by the applicants.

C. Default interest

134. 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 concerning the non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies, and rejects it;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Bekkhan Alaudinov;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convent



> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet