Convention in the circumstances of the present case.
VI. Alleged violations of Articles 34 and 38
of the Convention
156. The applicants argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case the above issue should be examined under Article 34 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
"The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."
157. The Court points out that it has already taken note of the Government's failure to produce a copy of the investigation file and drawn inferences from it. Nevertheless, it reiterates that the main objective of Article 34 of the Convention is to ensure the effective operation of the right of individual petition. There is no indication in the present case that there has been any hindrance of the applicants' right to individual petition, either in the form of interference with the communication between the applicants or their representatives and the Court, or in the form of undue pressure placed on the applicants (see Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia, No. 37315/03, § 132, 29 May 2008).
158. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
159. 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
160. The applicants claimed damages in respect of loss of earnings by their relative after his arrest and subsequent disappearance. They submitted that before his abduction Bashir Mutsolgov was officially unemployed and earned his living by installing various software on private individuals' computers. With reference to a written statement by the third applicant the applicants stated that Bashir Mutsolgov's monthly income as a result of those activities was approximately USD 600. Applying the actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published by the United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department ("Ogden tables") and the provisions of the Russian legislation, the first, second, fourth and fifth applicants claimed a total of 95,685.35 pounds sterling (GBP) in respect of pecuniary damage. The third applicant made no claims under this head.
161. The Government argued that the applicants' claims were unsubstantiated and that they had not made use of the domestic avenues for obtaining compensation for the loss of a breadwinner.
162. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. Having regard to its conclusions above, it finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants' relative and the loss to them of the financial support which he could have provided. The Court further finds that the loss of earnings also applies to the dependent children and, in some instances, t
> 1 2 3 ... 25 26 27 28 ... 29
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
