PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KALAYDJIEVA

Rule 60 § 2 gives a Chamber discretion to decide whether the itemised evidence submitted by an applicant is sufficient to establish the costs claimed and to reject unsubstantiated claims in whole or in part. In my view this Rule may not be interpreted as an absolute condition or a ground to reject claims in cases where a considerable amount of necessary work is objectively demonstrated.

To reach conclusions in this regard in the past the Court has considered ( i) whether the claimed costs and expenses in a case were “actually and necessarily incurred in order to ... obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention” and (ii) whether the amounts of these costs were “reasonable as to quantum” (see, for instance, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom , § 77, and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], § 62).

The applicant ’ s representative prepared and submitted 17 pages of relevant observations and legal analysis, which appear to be helpful for the Court ’ s conclusions as to the admissibility and the merits of the applicant ’ s complaints. I see no reason why this document may not serve as objective evidence to establish actually incurred costs, which should justify an award higher than 100 euros.

[1] 1. Member of Parliament, Speaker of the Belarus Parliament ( Verkhovny Sovet ) from 1991-1994, and a signatory, along with Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk, to the document setting up the CIS.

[2] At the material time the administrative procedure was part of the Code of Civil Procedure.