§ 46, 24 February 2005, or Magomadov and Magomadov v. Russia, No. 68004/01, §§ 36 and 82, 12 July 2007), or agreed to produce documents from the investigation files even though they had initially invoked Article 161 (see Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia, No. 5108/02, §§ 62 - 63, 17 January 2008). For these reasons, the Court considers the Government's explanations concerning the disclosure of the case file insufficient to justify withholding the key information requested by the Court.
146. Having regard to the importance of cooperation by the respondent Government in Convention proceedings and the difficulties associated with the establishment of the facts in cases such as the present one, the Court finds that the Russian Government fell short of their obligations under Article 38 of the Convention on account of their failure to submit copies of the documents requested in respect of the disappearance of the applicants' relatives.
VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
147. 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. Damage
1. Pecuniary damage
148. The applicants claimed compensation in respect of the loss of the financial support which their deceased relatives would have provided. They submitted that, although Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev were not officially employed, their earnings at the material time had been no less than the allowance of an unemployed person having the same qualifications. The applicants based their method of calculation on the actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published by the United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department in 2004 ("the Ogden tables"), with reference to the absence of any equivalent methods of calculation in Russia. The applicants claimed the following amounts under this head:
(i) 417,888.01 Russian roubles (RUB), approximately 11,000 euros (EUR), for the first applicant,
(ii) RUB 352,907.66 (approximately EUR 9,000) for the second applicant,
(iii) RUB 185,991.27 (approximately EUR 4,800) for the third applicant,
(iv) RUB 645,032.68 (approximately EUR 16,800) for the fourth applicant, and
(v) RUB 171,578.57 (approximately EUR 4,500) for the fifth applicant.
The seventh applicant did not submit any claim under this head.
149. The Government submitted that the applicants could obtain compensation for the loss of their breadwinners at the domestic level.
150. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by applicants and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, in appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, {Cakici}, cited above, § 127). It finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants' relatives and their loss of the financial support which their relatives could have provided. The Court further finds that the loss of earnings applies to dependants and considers it reasonable to assume that the two men who went missing would have had some earnings and that the applicants would have benefited from these.
151. Having regard to the applicants' submissions, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 6,000 to the first applicant, EUR 6,000 to the second applicant, EUR 4,500 to the third applicant, EUR 6,000 to the fourth applicant and EUR 4,500 to the fifth applicant under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts.
2. Non-pecuni
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
