PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court iii) Costs and Expenses The Court also awards documented costs and expenses that arose in the connection with the domestic procedure and the procedure before the Court. Such costs and expenses typically include costs of legal assistance,288 court fees,289 translation,290 photocopying,291 postal costs,292 and travel costs.293 The Court only awards costs and expenses insofar they relate to a violation. Hence, it is advisable to clearly relate each cost and expense to a specific complaint. In order for costs and expenses to be reimbursable, the Court requires them to be actual, necessary, and reasonable.294 b) Individual Measures The Court or the Committee of Ministers, tasked with the supervision of the execution of judgments, can also require a respondent State to take individual measures. A friquent individual measure is the reopening of domestic procedures. In the case of Alfatli and Others v. Turkey, the Court found that “in principle, the most appropriate form of relief would be to ensure that the applicant is granted in due course a retrial by an independent and impartial tribunal.” 295 The vast majority of member States allow within their domestic laws for the reopening of criminal proceedings.296 A number of member States also provide for the reopening of proceedings with regard to civil and administrative procedures.297 The reopening See e.g. Kakabadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 1484/07, 2 October 2012, § 108. See e.g. Sannino v. Italy, no. 30961/03, 27 April 2006, §§ 72–76. See e.g. Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway, no. 23118/93, 25 November 1999, § 60. See e.g. Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, no. 39731/98, 10 April 2003, § 108. See e.g. Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, 22 December 2004, § 170. See e.g. Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway, no. 23118/93, 25 November 1999, § 60. See e.g. Asalya v. Turkey, no. 43875/09, 15 April 2014, § 128; Zinchenko v. Ukraine, no. 63763/11, 13 March 2014 § 120. 295 Alfatli and Others v. Turkey, no. 32984/96, 30 October 2003, § 52. 296 Elisabeth Lambert Abdelgawad, “The Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Towards a Non-coercive and Participatory Model of Accountability”, in Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, vol. 69, 2009, p. 481. 297 A study conducted by Tom Barkhuysen and Michiel L van Emmerik, “A Comparative View on the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, in Theodora A Christou and Juan Pablo Raymond (eds), European Court of Human Rights. Remedies and Execution of Judgments, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2005, pp. 9–10 found that Bulgaria, Lithuania, Norway, Malta, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, Sweden, Croatia, Poland, Andorra, Iceland, Hungary, Russia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Turkey and Romania provide for a reopening of civil procedures. Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers also show that this possibility exists in the Ukraine (Hunt v. Ukraine, no 31111/04, Committee of Ministers, ResDH (2008) 64, 25 June 2008), Romania (Ionescu and Mihaila v. Romania, no. 36782/97,Committee of Ministers, ResDH (2011) 248, 2 December 2011), Armenia (Nikoghosyan and Melkonyan v. Armenia, nos. 11724/04 and13350/04, Committee of Ministers, ResDH (2011) 89, 14 September 2011), Georgia (FC Mretebi v. Georgia, no. 38736/04, Committee of Ministers, ResDH (2010) 163, 2 December 2010), Belgium (Da Luz Domingues Ferreira v. Belgium, no. 50049/99, Committee of Ministers, 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 101