Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.02.2009 «Дело Хайдаева и другие (Khaydayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

of the loss of earnings of their son, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, following his apprehension and subsequent disappearance. They claimed a total of 234,375.22 roubles (RUR) under this head (approximately 6,747 euros (EUR)).
162. They submitted that Mr Adlan Khatuyev had been a sixth-year student at the Grozny State Oil Institute and, upon graduation, would have started working to support his family. Having regard to the provisions of the Civil Code on calculation of lost earnings, they claimed that the amount of their son's earnings should be equal to the average remuneration of a person with similar qualifications and should not be based on an amount lower than the subsistence level determined by federal laws. The third and fourth applicants submitted that they had to raise Mr Adlan Khatuyev's daughter, born in August 2002 after his disappearance. According to them, they would have benefited from his financial support for her upbringing in an amount equal to 30% of his earnings. Their 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 ("the Ogden tables").
163. The Government argued that no compensation for pecuniary damage should be awarded to the third and fourth applicants since it had not been established in domestic proceedings that Mr Adlan Khatuyev was dead. They also objected to the applicants' having based their claims on the Ogden tables.
164. 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".
165. The Court finds that there is indeed a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of Mr Adlan Khatuyev and the loss by the third and fourth applicants of the financial support which he could have provided. Although their son was a student at the time of his disappearance, the Court finds it reasonable to assume that upon graduation he would eventually have had some earnings and that the third and fourth applicants would have benefited from them. Having regard to the third and fourth applicants' submissions, the Court awards them EUR 6,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

166. The applicants claimed the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their family members, the indifference shown by the authorities towards them and the failure to provide any information about the fate of their close relatives:
1. the first applicant claimed EUR 40,000;
2. the second applicant claimed EUR 40,000;
3. the third applicant claimed EUR 80,000;
4. the fourth applicant claimed EUR 80,000;
5. the fifth applicant claimed EUR 40,000;
6. the sixth applicant claimed EUR 25,000;
7. the seventh applicant claimed EUR 40,000;
8. the eighth applicant claimed EUR 25,000.
167. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
168. The Court has found violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of the applicants' relatives. The applicants themselves have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards to the first and second applicants jointly

> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 22