Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 14.05.2009 «Дело Турлуева и Хамидова (Turluyeva and Khamidova) против России» [англ.]

clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicants and the violations 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' husband and son and the loss by the applicants of the financial support which he could have provided. The Court further finds it reasonable to assume that Aslanbek Khamidov would eventually have had some earnings from which the applicants would have benefited. Having regard to the applicants' submissions and the fact that Aslanbek Khamidov was not employed at the time of his arrest, the Court awards EUR 3,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

139. The applicants claimed EUR 100,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their husband and son and the indifference shown by the authorities towards them.
140. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
141. 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 applicants' relative. The applicants themselves have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It therefore finds it appropriate to award the first applicant EUR 25,000 and the second applicant EUR 10,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

C. Costs and expenses

142. The applicants claimed EUR 4,800 for the costs and expenses for legal representation incurred in relation to the proceedings before both the domestic authorities and the Court. However, they did not submit any documents in support of these claims. They also claimed 17,147 Russian roubles (EUR 467) in translation fees as confirmed by an invoice.
143. The Government indicated that the applicants had not shown that the expenses claimed for legal representation had actually been incurred.
144. The Court may make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far as they were actually and necessarily incurred (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], No. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V). Given that the applicants failed to submit any evidence to justify their costs and expenses related to the legal representation, it makes no award under this head. It finds it appropriate to award the costs claimed in translation fees in the amount of EUR 467.

D. Default interest

145. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Dismisses the Government's objection as to the validity of the application;
2. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
3. Declares the complaints under Article 2, Article 3 in respect of the applicants' mental suffering, Article 5 and Article 13 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Aslanbek Khamidov;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Aslanbek Khamidov disappeared;
6. Holds that there has

> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19