Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Исраилова и другие (Israilova and others) против России» [англ.]

in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. They also stated that they had been discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnic origin in breach of Article 14 of the Convention.
Article 8 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life ... home ...
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Article 14, in so far as relevant, provides:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as ... national ... origin ..."
172. In the observations on admissibility and merits of 19 February 2008 the applicants stated that they no longer wished their complaints under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention to be examined.
173. The Court, having regard to Article 37 of the Convention, finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). The Court also finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the present complaints by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see, for example, Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 30024/96, 26 September 2000, and Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
174. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

IX. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

175. 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

176. The first and second applicants claimed compensation for their son's VAZ-2103 car bought in July 2002 in the amount of its purchase price, that is 33,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 950 euros (EUR)). As evidence they submitted a copy of the purchase agreement for the VAZ-2103 between Sharpuddin Israilov and Mr A.T.
177. The ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants claimed compensation in respect of the lost wages of their husband and father. Although Adlan Dovtayev had been unemployed at the time of his disappearance, he could have been expected to earn the minimum wage and would have supported his wife and children financially. They claimed a total of RUB 396,453.59 (approximately EUR 115,000).
178. The Government regarded these claims as unfounded.
179. As regards the claims submitted by the first and second applicants, the Court observes that they provided no evidence that the VAZ-2103 car belonged to them or that they invested any money in it. Neither did they provide any information enabling the Court to conclude that they were the only persons who could have inherited the car from their late son. The Court therefore does not find it appropriate in the circumstances of this case to make any award to the first and second applicants under this head.
180. As to the claims submitted by the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants, 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

> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 23 ... 24