Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.02.2009 «Дело Аюбов (Ayubov) против России» [англ.]

e, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 46, 24 February 2005, or Magomadov and Magomadov v. Russia, No. 68004/01, §§ 36 and 82, 12 July 2007), or agreed to produce documents from the investigation files even though they had initially relied on Article 161 (see Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia, No. 5108/02, §§ 62 - 63, 17 January 2008). For these reasons, the Court considers the Government's explanations concerning the disclosure of the case file insufficient to justify withholding the key information requested by the Court.
112. Having regard to the importance of cooperation by the respondent Government in Convention proceedings and the difficulties associated with establishment of the facts in cases such as the present one, the Court finds that the Russian Government fell short of their obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention on account of their failure to submit copies of the documents requested in respect of the disappearance of the applicant's son.
113. In view of the above finding, the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 34 of the Convention.

VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

114. 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. Damage

1. Pecuniary damage

115. The applicant's wife, Adam Ayubov's mother, sought compensation in the amount of 149,317.79 United Kingdom pounds sterling (GBP - approximately 190,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of the loss of the financial support her son would have provided for her and for his wife and their two minor children. She submitted that, although not officially employed, Adam Ayubov worked as a cab driver and re-sold used cars and that his monthly earnings amounted to USD 1,500. The applicant's wife based her calculations on the actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published by the United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department in 2004 ("the Ogden tables"), with reference to the absence of any equivalent methods of calculation in Russia. The applicant's wife further claimed under this head USD 43,100, which represented the total amount of the property listed in the handwritten document of 10 June 2005 (see paragraph 40 above), and USD 40,000 for the destroyed house. In the latter respect, the applicant's wife relied on internet publications reporting the increase in real estate prices in the Chechen Republic and announcements concerning purchase and sale of real estate in Grozny, from which it could be ascertained that a five-room house in Grozny was offered for sale for USD 36,986.
116. The Government contested these claims as unsubstantiated. They argued that at the time of his disappearance Adam Ayubov had not been officially employed and that the amount of USD 1,500 which he had allegedly earned monthly was speculative. They also submitted that Adam Ayubov's relatives could obtain compensation for the loss of a breadwinner and the destroyed property at the domestic level.
117. As regards the lost financial support, 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 appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, {Cakici}, cited above, § 127). It further finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of Adam Ayubov and the loss by his mother of the financial support which he could have provided for her.



> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 22 ... 23

	Поделиться:	Tweet