had been wounded on 10 June 2003. She had not kept any receipts to confirm the expenses in question. She also stated that she would need constant paid assistance from third persons in the future owing to her disability sustained as a result of the wounds. The first applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.
148. The Government noted that the applicants could have claimed a pension for the loss of a breadwinner at national level.
149. 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".
150. The Court reiterates that an award for pecuniary damage may be made in respect of loss of earnings and considers that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of Umar Zabiyev and the loss by his wife and children of the financial support which he could have provided. It therefore awards in respect of pecuniary damage EUR 7,340 to the second applicant, EUR 2,622 to the third applicant and EUR 2,905 to the fourth applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
151. The Court observes at the same time that the first applicant failed to substantiate her claims in respect of pecuniary damage as regards past and future medical costs and thus makes no award in this respect.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
152. The first applicant claimed EUR 60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering she had endured as a result of the armed attack on her and her son's death, as well as the indifference shown by the authorities towards her. The second applicant claimed EUR 40,000, while the third and fourth applicants claimed EUR 30,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering caused by the loss of their husband and father.
153. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
154. The Court has found violations of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicants' late relative, as well as a violation of Article 3 in respect of the first applicant. The Court thus accepts that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It finds it appropriate to award in respect of non-pecuniary damage EUR 15,000 to the first applicant and EUR 30,000 to the second, third and fourth applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
C. Costs and expenses
155. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research at a rate of EUR 50 per hour and the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for SRJI senior staff. They also claimed translation fees, confirmed by invoices, and administrative expenses, which were not supported by any evidence. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses relating to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 7,127.76.
156. The Government submitted that the applicants' claims for just satisfaction had been signed by five lawyers, although two of them had not been mentioned in the powers of attorney issued by the applicants. They also doubted the reasonableness of the postal costs.
157. The Court points out that the applicants had given authority to act to the SRJI and its three lawyers. The applicants' claims for just satisfaction were signed by five persons in total. The names of three of them appeared in the powers of attorney, while t
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
