Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 02.04.2009 «Дело Докуев и другие (Dokuyev and others) против России» [англ.]

its general duties as regards the examination of applications. It is inherent in the proceedings relating to cases of this nature, where individual applicants accuse State agents of violating their rights under the Convention, that in certain instances it is only the respondent State that has access to information capable of corroborating or refuting these allegations. A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their possession without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. In a case where the application raises issues as to the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Court's proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see {Tanrikulu} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23763/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IV).
156. The Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation file opened into the disappearance of the applicants' relative, the Government refused to produce such a copy, relying on Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having provided only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status, and of the transcripts of the interviews with the first and fifth applicants. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this reference insufficient to justify refusal (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 123).
157. Referring to the importance of a respondent Government's cooperation in Convention proceedings, and mindful of the difficulties associated with the establishment of facts in cases of such a nature, the Court finds that the Government fell short of their obligations under Article 38 § 1 of the Convention because of their failure to submit copies of the documents requested in respect of the disappearance of Mr Magomed Dokuyev.

X. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

158. 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

159. The third applicant claimed that she had sustained damage in respect of the loss of financial support from her husband following his apprehension and subsequent disappearance. The applicant claimed a total of 621,419.25 roubles (RUB) under this head (approximately 17,160 euros (EUR)) in respect of herself and her son.
160. She referred to provisions of the Civil Code on calculation of lost earnings to the effect that earnings of an unemployed person should be equalled to the usual amount of remuneration of a person with similar qualifications and could not be based on an amount smaller than the subsistence level determined by federal laws. She submitted that she and her son would have benefited from her husband's financial support in the amount indicated above, that is 50% of his earnings (30% for the applicant herself and 20% for her son). Her calculations were based on provisions of the 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").
161. The Government argued that no compensation for pecuniary damage should be awarded to the third applicant since it was not established that her husband was dead.

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