gard to Article 37 of the Convention, finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). The Court also finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the present complaints by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
145. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
X. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
146. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
147. The applicants did not submit any claims for pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) each for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their son, the indifference shown by the authorities towards them and the failure to provide any information about the fate of Marvan Idalov.
148. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
149. 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' son. The applicants themselves have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. Accordingly, it finds it appropriate to award under this head the applicants EUR 35,000 jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
150. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research and interviews at a rate of EUR 50 per hour and the drafting of legal documents at rates of EUR 50 and EUR 150 per hour. They also claimed international courier mail fees and translation fees, as confirmed by relevant invoices, and administrative expenses unsubstantiated by any evidence. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 7,263.88.
151. 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, whereas two of them 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 mail.
152. The Court points out that the applicants had given authority to act to the SRJI and its six lawyers. The applicants' observations and claims for just satisfaction were signed by six persons in total. The names of four of them appeared in the powers of attorney, while two other lawyers collaborated with the SRJI. In such circumstances the Court sees no reason 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 mail.
153. The Court has now to establish whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' relative were actually incurred and whether they were necessary (see McCann and
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
