Furthermore, she should have applied to domestic courts with a claim for compensation of damage caused by the death of the breadwinner.
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 third applicant's husband and the loss by her 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 that it is reasonable to assume that Mr Magomed Dokuyev would eventually have had some earnings from which the third applicant and her son would have benefited (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213). Having regard to the third applicant's submissions and the fact that Magomed Dokuyev was not employed at the time of his apprehension, the Court awards EUR 5,000 to the third applicant in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
164. The applicants claimed the following amounts in respect of 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 and second applicant claimed EUR 30,000 each, the third applicant claimed EUR 40,000, the fourth and fifth applicant claimed EUR 7,500 each and the sixth and seventh applicant claimed EUR 2,500 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, second and third applicants themselves have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Taking into consideration the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants' close family ties with Mr Magomed Dokuyev, the Court accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards to those applicants jointly EUR 35,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
167. In view of the above claims for non-pecuniary damage brought by Mr Magomed Dokuyev's close relatives, the Court dismisses the claims brought by the sixth and seventh applicants, his uncle and cousin, and makes no award under this head.
C. Costs and expenses
168. 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. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 9,758.25.
169. The Government did not dispute the details of the calculations submitted by the applicants, but pointed out that they should be entitled to the reimbursement of their costs and expenses only in so far as it had been shown that they had been actually incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see Skorobogatova v. Russia, No. 33914/02, § 61, 1 December 2005). They objected, however, to the applicants' representatives' claim in
> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
