Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.01.2009 «Дело Заурбекова и Заурбекова (Zaurbekova and Zaurbekova) против России» [англ.]

RJI. It is satisfied that the lawyers indicated in their claim formed part of the SRJI staff. Accordingly, the objection must be dismissed.
139. The Court reiterates that costs and expenses will not be awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were actually and necessarily incurred, and were also reasonable as to quantum (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], No. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI). It notes that this case has been relatively complex and has required a certain amount of research work. On the other hand, once the preparation of the initial submissions had been completed, the work did not involve a large number of documents and the Court therefore doubts whether at its later stages the case required the amount of research and preparation claimed by the applicants' representatives.
140. In these circumstances, having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court awards them the reduced amount of EUR 8,000, less EUR 850 already received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, together with any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. The amount awarded is to be payable to the representative organisation directly.

C. Default interest

141. 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. Dismisses the Government's preliminary objection;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the disappearance of Isa Zaurbekov;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Isa Zaurbekov;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the alleged ill-treatment of Isa Zaurbekov;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering endured by the applicants because of their relative's disappearance and the lack of an effective investigation into the matter;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Isa Zaurbekov;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the second applicant and Isa Zaurbekov;
8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
9. 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 Isa Zaurbekov;
10. 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 on account of mental suffering and in respect of the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention;
11. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the second applicant;
12. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, all of which, save for those payable into the bank in the Netherlands, are to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros) to the first applicant in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 35,000 (thirty-five



> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25

	Поделиться:	Tweet