no official records of his earnings existed, the applicant submitted that his monthly pay had averaged between 600 and 800 United States dollars (USD). The applicant relied on the Law on Minimal Living Costs and the subsequent decrees by the Russian Government which had established the minimum living costs per person at different periods of time. The claim as to her loss of future earnings was based on the Ogden actuarial tables and on the assumption that she and her minor sons would have continued to benefit from her husband's salary.
108. Under this heading the applicant claimed a total of 919,347 Russian roubles (RUB) (20,992 euros (EUR)).
109. The Government regarded these claims as based on suppositions and unfounded. They noted that the applicant had not made use of the domestic avenues for obtaining compensation for the loss of a breadwinner.
110. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. Having regard to its conclusions above, it finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicant's husband and her loss of the financial support which he could have provided.
111. Having regard to the applicant's submissions and the absence of any conclusive data about Mr Khatuyev's earnings at the time of his apprehension, the Court awards EUR 10,000 to the applicant in respect of pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable to her.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
112. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed EUR 100,000 for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her husband and the indifference shown by the authorities towards her.
113. The Government considered the amount claimed to be exaggerated.
114. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of the applicant's relative. The applicant herself has been found to have been the victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that she has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards the applicant EUR 60,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
C. Request for investigation
115. The applicant also requested, referring to Article 41 of the Convention, that "an independent investigation which would comply with the requirements of the Convention be conducted into her husband's abduction". She relied in this connection on the case of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], No. 71503/01, §§ 202 - 203, ECHR 2004-II).
116. The Government argued that the investigation into the abduction of Mr Khatuyev had been carried out in full compliance with domestic law.
117. Having regard to its previous practice in similar cases, the Court finds it most appropriate to leave it to the respondent Government to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order in order to discharge their legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, § 134, 15 November 2007).
D. Costs and expenses
118. The applicant was represented by lawyers from the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicant's legal representation amounted to EUR 2,165 (2,019 pounds sterling (GBP)). They submitted the following breakdown of costs:
(a) GBP 817 for eight hours and ten minutes of legal work by United Kingdom-based lawyers at a rate of GBP 100 per hour;
(b) GBP 1,027 for translation costs, as certified by i
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
