WIEDER AND GUARNIERI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT was submitted) together with the sum of GBP 54,280.00 in respect of “anticipated future costs”. 116. The Government argued that the claim for “anticipated future costs” was a claim for costs that had not been incurred. Moreover, in their view the sum was unparticularised and manifestly excessive. 117. 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 were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, while the claim for costs is divided up into “costs incurred” and “anticipated future costs”, the fee notes submitted in support would suggest that some of the “anticipated future costs” were in fact incurred in the preparation of the applicants’ observations. According to these fee notes, the professional fees of Mr Ben Jaffey KC were GBP 15,882, inclusive of VAT; the professional fees of Mr David Heaton were GBP 670, inclusive of VAT; the professional fees of Ms Gayatryy Sarathy were GBP 10,616, inclusive of VAT; and the professional fees of Ms Sophie Bird were GBP 2,048, inclusive of VAT. The remainder of the claim for costs has not been supported by any fee notes or bills of costs. 118. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 33,155 covering costs under all heads for the proceedings before the Court. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1. Decides, to join the applications; 2. Decides, to strike out the complaints concerning the receipt of intelligence from foreign intelligence agencies; 3. Declares, the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the regime under section 8(4) of RIPA admissible; 4. Holds, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the regime under section 8(4) of RIPA; 5. Declares, the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention inadmissible; 6. Holds, that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention read together with Article 8; 7. Holds, that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants; 33