36 ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT Procedure requires the reopening of the investigation after the Court's findings in the present case. Furthermore, Article 41 of the Convention does not require applicants to exhaust domestic remedies a second time in order to obtain just satisfaction if they have already done so in vain in respect of their substantive complaints. The wording of that provision – where it refers to the possibility of reparation under domestic law – establishes a rule going to the merits of the just satisfaction issue (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 10 March 1972, Series A no. 14, pp. 8-9, § 16). In this connection, the Court considers that the hypothetical possibility that the investigation may resume, many years after the death of the applicant's son in police custody and after the first ineffective investigation, and that the applicant may then have the opportunity to bring a civil claim, which would only be successful if the fresh investigation produced results, cannot reasonably be interpreted as restitutio in integrum under domestic law. 173. The Court, having regard to its judgments in similar cases (see Velikova, cited above) and to the fact that the present case concerns the death of a 17-year-old boy in police custody, awards the claim for nonpecuniary damage in full. B. Costs and expenses 174. The applicant claimed 3,800 United States dollars (“USD”) for 95 hours of legal work at an hourly rate of USD 40. She submitted a copy of a contract between her and her lawyer and a time-sheet. 175. The Government considered that the contingency-fee agreement between the applicant and her lawyer was “absurd” and that the rate of USD 40 per hour was excessive and even immoral, as lawyers were under an obligation to help people of limited financial resources. 176. The Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses which are found to have been actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II). It further notes that the Government have not disputed the time-sheet presented by the applicant's lawyer. The Court does not find any indication that the number of hours claimed exceeds the legal work which was actually done and which was necessary to be done for the representation of the applicant. As to the hourly rate of USD 40, it has not been claimed that this is a rate higher than the rates charged, for example, by the leading law firms in Bulgaria.