er son was dead. Furthermore, she should have applied to domestic courts with a claim for compensation of damage caused by the death of the breadwinner. They also noted that Saydi Malsagov had been employed by APP Energetic from August 2002.
162. 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".
163. The Court finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the first applicant's son and the loss by her of the financial support which he could have provided. It further assumes that, regardless of whether Saydi Malsagov had been employed on the day of his abduction or not, either his salary or unemployment benefits could not be less than the minimum wage. Having regard to the first applicant's submissions, the Court finds it appropriate to award her EUR 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
164. The applicants claimed non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their family member, the indifference shown by the authorities towards him and the failure to provide any information about the fate of their close relative. The first applicant claimed EUR 50,000, while the other six applicants claimed EUR 5,000 each.
165. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
166. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention, ill-treatment and disappearance of the applicants' relative. The first, fourth and seventh applicants themselves have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Taking into consideration the applicants' family ties with Saydi Malsagov, the Court accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It finds it appropriate to award EUR 27,000 to the first applicant, EUR 3,000 each to the fourth and seventh applicants and EUR 750 to the second, third, fifth and sixth applicants each, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
C. Costs and expenses
167. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research and interviews in Ingushetia and Moscow, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour, and the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for SRJI senior staff, as well as administrative expenses, translation and courier mail fees. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 8,529.62.
168. The Government disputed the reasonableness and the justification of the amounts claimed under this head. They also submitted that the applicants' claims for just satisfaction had been signed by five lawyers, whereas two of them had not been mentioned in the powers of attorney issued by the applicants. They also doubted that it had been necessary to send the correspondence to the Registry via courier mail.
169. The Court points out that the applicants had given authority to act to the SRJI and its three lawyers. The applicants' claims for just satisfaction were signed by five persons in total. The names of three of them appeared in the powers of attorney, while two other lawyers worked with the SRJI. In such circumstances the Court sees no reason to d
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
