Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.02.2009 «Дело Аюбов (Ayubov) против России» [англ.]

The Court cannot, however, take into account the claim of the applicant's wife in respect of Adam Ayubov's other relatives since they are not applicants in the present case (see Kaplanova v. Russia, No. 7653/02, § 144, 29 April 2008). The Court is further not convinced that the amount claimed is reasonable, given in particular that Adam Ayubov had not been formally employed at the time of his disappearance, and that the allegation of his mother that he earned USD 1,500 monthly is unsubstantiated. On the other hand, the Court would not exclude that Adam Ayubov had some earnings and that his mother could have benefited from a certain share of them. In view of these considerations the Court considers it reasonable to award her EUR 5,000 for the lost financial support which her son could have provided for her.
118. In so far as the applicant's wife sought compensation for the destroyed property, the Court notes firstly that there is a direct causal link between a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and his wife. However, it is not convinced that her claims in their entirety were substantiated. Having regard to the evidence submitted by the applicant and her argument regarding difficulties in obtaining documents in support of her claims (see paragraphs 39 - 42 above), the Court finds it reasonable to award EUR 30,000 in respect of the damaged property.
119. Accordingly, the Court awards the applicant's wife the total amount of EUR 35,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to her on that amount.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

120. The applicant's wife claimed EUR 100,000 for herself and Adam Ayubov's wife and minor children in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the fear, anguish and distress which they had suffered as a result of their relative's disappearance.
121. The Government considered this claim to be excessive.
122. The Court firstly notes that it has held above that it cannot take into account the claim of the applicant's wife in respect of Adam Ayubov's other relatives since they are not applicants in the present case. It further observes that it has found a violation of Articles 2, 5, and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the unlawful detention and disappearance of Adam Ayubov, the breach of property rights and the absence of effective remedies to secure domestic redress for those violations. The Court has also found a violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention on account of the Government's failure to submit the materials requested by the Court. The applicant and his wife must have suffered anguish and distress as a result of all these circumstances, which cannot be compensated by a mere finding of a violation. Having regard to these considerations, the Court awards, on an equitable basis, EUR 35,000 to the applicant's wife for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to her on this amount.

B. Request for an investigation

123. The applicant's wife also requested, referring to Article 41 of the Convention, that "an independent investigation which would comply with the requirements of the Convention be conducted into her son's abduction". She relied in this connection on the case of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], No. 71503/01, §§ 202 - 203, ECHR 2004-II).
124. The Government argued that the investigation into the abduction of Adam Ayubov had been carried out in full compliance with domestic law.
125. The Court reiterates that, in the context of the execution of judgments in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation under that provision to put an end to the breach and to make reparation for i

> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 23