Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 11.06.2009 «Дело Халитова и другие (Khalitova and others) против России» [англ.]

he time of their disappearance, the Court awards EUR 3,000 to the first applicant and EUR 1,500 to the third and fourth applicants each in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts.
170. The Court further notes that the fourth applicant failed to substantiate his pecuniary damage claims as regards the destroyed car of his son and thus makes no award in this respect.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

171. The applicants claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they endured as a result of the loss of their family members and the indifference shown by the authorities towards them. The first applicant claimed EUR 40,000, while the second, third and fourth applicants claimed EUR 20,000 each.
172. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
173. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the 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 therefore the first applicant EUR 40,000 and the second, third and fourth applicants EUR 20,000 each, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.

C. Costs and expenses

174. The applicants also claimed a total of EUR 7,900 to be paid to five lawyers of the International Protection Centre who had prepared their application form and observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. They failed to produce any documents or invoices to confirm that the amounts claimed had been paid to the representatives.
175. The Government indicated that the applicants had not shown that the expenses claimed for legal representation had actually been incurred and that three of the five lawyers mentioned by the applicants had not been named in the powers of attorney.
176. The Court may make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far as they were actually and necessarily incurred (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], No. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V). Given that the applicants failed to submit any evidence to justify their costs and expenses related to the legal representation, it makes no award under this head.

D. Default interest

177. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaints under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, the complaint under Article 3 concerning the applicants' mental suffering, the complaints under Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 5, as well as the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with the complaint concerning the applicants' mental suffering admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov had disappeared;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan



> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet