Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.02.2009 «Дело Идалова и Идалов (Idalova and Idalov) против России» [англ.]

Others, cited above, § 220).
154. Having regard to the details of the information before it, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
155. 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, owing to the application of Article 29 § 3 in the present case, 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 most of the case file. The Court thus doubts that legal drafting was necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the representatives.
156. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court finds it appropriate to award the applicants' representatives EUR 4,500, 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 award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.

C. Default interest

157. 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' complaint under Article 14 of the Convention;
2. Dismisses the Government's objection regarding abuse of the right of petition;
3. Dismisses the Government's objection regarding locus standi;
4. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection regarding non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
5. Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention admissible;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Marvan Idalov;
7. 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 Marvan Idalov disappeared;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants;
9. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Marvan Idalov;
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 no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5;
12. 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 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicants jointly, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount;
(ii) EUR 3,650 (three thousand six hundred and fifty euros), in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the a

> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20

0.132 с