Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 «Дело Басаева и другие (Basayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

195. The Government submitted that the document containing the applicants' claims for just satisfaction had been signed by Mr O. Solvang and Mr R. Lemaitre while, in the Government's opinion, the applicants had been represented by Ms E. Ezhova, Ms A. Maltseva, Mr A. Sakalov and Mr A. Nikolayev. They insisted therefore that the applicants' claims for just satisfaction were invalid.
196. The Court points out that the applicants issued powers of attorney in the name of the SRJI, an NGO that collaborates with a number of lawyers. Since the SRJI lists Mr O. Solvang and Mr R. Lemaitre as staff members and members of its governing board, the Court has no doubts that they were duly authorised to sign the claims for just satisfaction on behalf of the applicants. The Government's objection must therefore be dismissed.

B. Pecuniary damage

197. The first and fourth applicants claimed damages in respect of the lost wages of their abducted relative Lecha Basayev. They submitted that they were financially dependent on him and would have benefited from his financial support in the following amounts. The first applicant, as the wife of Lecha Basayev, claimed the amount of 117,039 Russian roubles (RUB) (3,344 euros (EUR)) and the fourth applicant, as his daughter, claimed the amount of RUB 42,882 (EUR 1,225). By their letter of 7 April 2009 the applicants informed the Court that they no longer sought the examination of the claims for damages made in respect of the second applicant.
198. The ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants claimed damages in respect of the lost wages of their abducted relative Lema Dikayev. They submitted that they were financially dependent on him and would have benefited from his financial support in the following amounts. The ninth applicant, as the wife of Lema Dikayev, claimed the amount of RUB 165,536 (EUR 4,730); the tenth and eleventh applicants as his daughters claimed the amount of RUB 31,430 (EUR 900) and RUB 36,966 (EUR 1,056) accordingly.
199. The applicants' calculations were based on the provisions of the Russian Civil Code and the actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published by the United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department in 2007 ("Ogden tables").
200. The Government regarded these claims as unsubstantiated.
201. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicants 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 above conclusions, it finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants' relatives and the loss by the applicants of the financial support which they could have provided. Having regard to the applicants' submissions and the absence of documentation certifying earnings of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev's at the time of abduction, the Court awards EUR 3,000 to the first applicant, EUR 1,000 to the fourth applicant, EUR 3,500 to the ninth applicant; EUR 900 to the tenth applicant as claimed and EUR 1,000 to the eleventh applicant in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

C. Non-pecuniary damage

202. The applicants claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage they suffered as a result of the loss of their family members, the indifference shown by the authorities towards them and the failure to provide any information about the fate of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. The applicants of Lecha Basayev's family, that is applicants one to six, claimed a total of EUR 70,000 under this heading, while the applicants of Lema Dikayev family, that is applicants seven to eleven, claimed a total of EUR 80,000.

> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 27 ... 28