Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 14.05.2009 «Дело Тайсумов и другие (Taysumov and others) против России» [англ.]

y concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Pecuniary damage

134. The first and third applicants claimed a sum for pecuniary damage on account of Kazbek Taysumov's lost wages. They submitted that, even though their son and father had been unemployed at the time of his death, it was reasonable to assume that he would have earned at least the official minimum wage. In total the first applicant claimed 119,801.21 Russian roubles (RUB - approximately 2,700 euros (EUR)) and the third applicant claimed RUB 241,326.59 (approximately EUR 5,400).
135. The Government argued that no compensation for pecuniary damage should be awarded to the first and third applicants since it was not established that the State was responsible for their relatives' deaths and found the claims unsubstantiated.
136. 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".
137. The Court finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of Kazbek Taysumov and the loss by the first and third applicants of the financial support which he could have provided. Having regard to the applicants' submissions and to the fact that Kazbek Taysumov had been unemployed by the time of his death, the Court finds it appropriate to award the first and third applicants EUR 1,500 each in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

138. The first and third applicants claimed non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their family members and the indifference shown by the authorities towards them. The first applicant claimed EUR 75,000 and the third applicant claimed EUR 150,000.
139. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
140. The Court has found violations of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention on account of the killing of the applicants' close relatives and the lack of an effective investigation into it. The Court accepts that the first and third applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of violations. It finds it appropriate to award the first and third applicants EUR 52,500 each, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

C. Costs and expenses

141. 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, as well as administrative expenses, translation and courier mail fees. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 9,046.24 less the amount received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe.
142. The Government disputed the reasonableness and justification of the amounts claimed under this head. They also submitted that the applicants' claims for just satisfaction had been signed by five lawyers, whereas two of them had not been mentioned in the powers of attorney issued by the applicants. They also doubted that it had been necessary to send the correspondence to the Registry via courier mail.
143. The Court points out that the applicants had given authority to act to

> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 19