ого трехмесячного срока и до момента выплаты на эти суммы должны начисляться простые проценты, размер которых определяется предельной кредитной ставкой Европейского центрального банка, действующей в период неуплаты, плюс три процента;
12) отклонил оставшуюся часть требований заявительницы о справедливой компенсации.
Совершено на английском языке, уведомление о Постановлении направлено в письменном виде 26 ноября 2009 г. в соответствии с пунктами 2 и 3 правила 77 Регламента Суда.
Председатель Палаты Суда
Христос РОЗАКИС
Секретарь Секции Суда
Серен НИЛЬСЕН
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF USTARKHANOVA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 35744/05)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 26.XI.2009)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ustarkhanova v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic},
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 November 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 35744/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Ms Khava Ustarkhanova on 3 October 2005.
2. The applicant was represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative ("SRJI"), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr A. Savenkov, First Deputy Minister of Justice, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 18 March 2008 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application and to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
4. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. She is the mother of Balavdi Ustarkhanov, who was born in 1982.
A. Disappearance of Balavdi Ustarkhanov
1. The applicant's account
6. The events described in the application took place in Zakan-Yurt, in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya. At the material time the village of Zakan-Yurt was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The area was under a curfew.
7. At the material time the applicant and her son Balavdi Ustarkhanov lived in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. On 31 December 2002 Balavdi Ustarkhanov went to Zakan-Yurt to celebrate the New Year holiday with his friend, Mr Magomed M. On the same day he had a fight
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 34 35 36