Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Дангаева и Тарамова (Dangayeva and Taramova) против России» [англ.]

GO had a right to assign any of its lawyers to deal with the applicants' case. Therefore, the Court finds no ground for objection.
136. Further, it has to be established whether the costs and expenses incurred for legal representation were necessary. The Court notes that because of the application of Article 29 § 3 in the present case, the applicants' representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in a single set of pleadings. It thus doubts that legal drafting was necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the representatives. It also notes that the applicants' representatives have not submitted any documents in support of their claim for administrative costs.
137. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the amount of EUR 5,000, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, the net award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.

D. Default interest

138. 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 as to the abuse of the right of petition;
3. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and rejects it;
4. Declares the complaints under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the death of Saidkhasan Dangayev;
6. 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 of Saidkhasan Dangayev's death;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
8. 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 7,491 (seven thousand four hundred and ninety-one euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, to the first applicant in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, to the first applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iv) EUR 4,150 (four thousand one hundred and fifty euros) in respect of the applicants' costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into their representatives' bank account in the Netherlands.
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
9. Dismisses the r



> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet