ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
81
regards the claims for costs and expenses made before the Grand Chamber,
the Government submitted that the claims had been submitted more than a
month after the hearing. As regards the legal fees, the Government
submitted that part of those fees covered the work performed by the
representatives before the applicant had signed an authority form and that
there was no authority form in the name of Ms Levine. Furthermore, the
number of representatives and the number of hours spent by them on the
preparation of the case had been excessive. There was moreover no
evidence that the applicant had paid the legal fees in question or was under a
legal or contractual obligation to pay them. As regards the translation and
other administrative expenses, the Government submitted that the applicant
had not provided any documents showing that he had paid the amounts
claimed. Nor had he proved that the translation expenses had indeed been
necessary, given that some of the applicant’s lawyers spoke Russian. The
rates claimed by the translators had been excessive. Lastly, the travelling
expenses had also been excessive.
316. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown
that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as
to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the sum of EUR 40,000 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that
may be chargeable to the applicant.
C. Default interest
317. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate
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
1. Joins, unanimously, to the merits the Government’s objections regarding
the applicant’s lack of victim status and non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies and declares the application admissible;
2. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention and dismisses the Government’s above-mentioned
objections;
3. Holds, unanimously, that there is no need to examine the complaint
under Article 13 of the Convention;