in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Article 14, in so far as relevant, provides:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as... national... origin..."
145. In the observations on admissibility and merits of 19 February 2008 the applicants stated that they no longer wished their complaints under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention to be examined.
146. The Court, having regard 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, for example, Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 30024/96, 26 September 2000, and Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
147. 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
148. 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
149. The applicants did not submit any claims for pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) each as a compensation for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their son and the indifference shown by the authorities towards them.
150. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
151. 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. A violation of Article 3 of the Convention has been found in respect of the applicants themselves. The Court thus accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It finds it appropriate to award the applicants jointly EUR 35,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
B. Costs and expenses
152. 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 submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for SRJI senior staff. They also claimed administrative expenses not supported by any evidence and translation and international courier fees confirmed by relevant invoices. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 8,771.18.
153. The Government disputed the reasonableness and the justification of the amount claimed as courier mail fees. They also submitted that the applicants' observations on admissibility and merits of the case and their claims for just satisfaction had been signed by six lawyers, while three of them had not been mentioned in the powers of attorney issued by the applicants.
154. The Court points out that the appli
> 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
