Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Умалатов и другие (Umalatov and others) против России» [англ.]

e has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
94. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.

VII. Alleged violations of Articles 34 and 38
of the Convention

95. The applicants argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case the above issue should be examined under Article 34 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
"The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."
96. The Court points out that it has already taken note of the Government's failure to produce a copy of the investigation file and drawn inferences from it. Nevertheless, it reiterates that the main objective of Article 34 of the Convention is to ensure the effective operation of the right of individual petition. There is no indication in the present case that there has been any hindrance of the applicants' right of individual petition, either in the form of interference with the communication between the applicants or their representatives and the Court, or in the form of undue pressure placed on the applicants.
97. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

98. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Pecuniary damage

99. The applicants claimed damages in respect of loss of earnings by their relatives after their arrests and subsequent disappearances. They did not provide any calculations or attesting documents, but indicated that the first and third applicants were pensioners and had counted on the financial support of their sons. The second applicant had lost her husband and thus the financial support he could have provided to her. Each applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR).
100. The Government regarded these claims as based on suppositions and unfounded. They also pointed to the existence of domestic statutory machinery for the provision of a pension for the loss of the family breadwinner.
101. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention. Furthermore, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, "failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part". Since the applicants have failed to produce any calculations or justifications regarding the pecuniary damage claimed, the Court decides to make no award under this head (see Elmurzayev and Others v. Russia, No. 3019/04, § 156, 12 June 2008).

B. Non-pecuniary damage

102. The first and the third applicants claimed EUR 100,000 and the second applicant claimed EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16