Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.02.2009 «Дело Мешаева и другие (Meshayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

183).
132. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
133. As regards the applicants' reference to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the Court considers that, in the circumstances, no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 in connection with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, § 119, 15 November 2007, and Aziyevy v. Russia, No. 77626/01, § 118, 20 March 2008).

VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

134. 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

135. The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and tenth applicants claimed that they had suffered pecuniary damage in respect of the lost wages of their relatives following their arrests and subsequent disappearances. They claimed that their relatives had been unemployed at the time of their arrest, or that they were unable to obtain salary statements for them, and that in such cases the calculation should be made on the basis of the subsistence level established by national law. They calculated their earnings for the period, taking into account an average inflation rate of 10%. Their calculations were also based on the actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published by the United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department in 2004 ("Ogden tables").
136. The first applicant claimed a total of 85,494 Russian roubles (RUB) under this heading (2,419 euros (EUR)). She claimed that she could have counted on 20% of her husband's earnings.
137. The fourth applicant claimed a total of RUB 15,735 (EUR 445). The fifth applicant claimed RUB 28,077 (EUR 795). The sixth and the seventh applicant claimed 35,335 (EUR 1,000) each. They claimed that they could have counted on 10% of their father Leoma Meshayev's earnings until they reached the age of majority.
138. The tenth applicant submitted that she could have counted on 30% of her son Bislan Saydayev's earnings. She claimed a total of RUB 371,638 (EUR 10,517).
139. 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. The Court further finds that the loss of earnings also applies to the dependent children and elderly parents and that it is reasonable to assume that the two men would eventually have had some earnings from which the applicants would have benefited (see Imakayeva, cited above, § 213). Having regard to the above conclusions, it finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants' husband, father and son and the loss by the applicants of the financial support which they could have provided.
140. Having regard to the applicants' submissions and accepting that it would be reasonable to assume that their relatives would have eventually had some earnings resulting in the financial support of their families, the Court awards EUR 5,500 to the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants jointly and EUR 3,000 to the tenth applicant in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

141. The applicants, save for the thirteenth applicant, claimed various sums ranging from EUR 5,000 to EUR 50,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured a

> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20