Source: http://zakoniros.ru/?p=19082
Timestamp: 2017-07-24 06:52:53
Document Index: 500934486

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 358', '§ 164', '§ 115', '§ 164', '§ 122', '§ 132', '§ 157', '§ 3', '§ 213', '§ 220', '§ 147']

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 30.01.2014 «Дело «Микиева и другие (Mikiyeva and Others) против Российской Федерации» (жалобы N 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 и 15695/11) [англ.] Часть 3 — Законы России
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 30.01.2014 «Дело «Микиева и другие (Mikiyeva and Others) против Российской Федерации» (жалобы N 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 и 15695/11) [англ.] Часть 3
15.04.2016 1 2 3
The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:
The Court has found on many occasions that a situation of enforced disappearance gives rise to a violation of Article 3 in respect of the close relatives of the victim. The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the «disappearance» of the family member, but rather concerns the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164). Where news of the missing person’s death is preceded by a sufficiently long period in which he or she may be deemed disappeared, there exists a distinct period during which an applicant sustains uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic to the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 115).
Equally, the Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see v. Turkey, No. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 122, and Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 132).
The Court reiterates its findings regarding the State’s responsibility for the abductions and the failure to carry out meaningful investigations into the fates of the disappeared persons. It finds that the applicants, who are close relatives of the disappeared, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish which they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the fate of their family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.
The Court furthermore confirms that since it has been established that the applicants’ relatives were detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgement of such detention, this constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of persons enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.
The Court reiterates its findings of the general ineffectiveness of criminal investigations in cases such as those under examination. In the absence of results from a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice.
The Court thus finds that the applicants in these cases did not have an effective domestic remedy at their disposal for their grievances under Articles 2 and 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 157).
The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant in the case of Esuyev (No. 15695/11) under Articles 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as those complaints fall within the Court’s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
In respect of pecuniary damage, the first and second applicants claimed 146,174 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 3,400 euros (EUR)) and RUB 464,862 (approximately EUR 10,820) respectively for the loss of financial support of their family breadwinner. The applicants based their calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law and the Ogden Actuarial Tables.
In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants jointly claimed EUR 100,000.
In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed EUR 30,618, EUR 29,646, EUR 30,684 and EUR 33,176 respectively for the loss of financial support of their family breadwinner. The applicants based their calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law.
In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants asked the Court to award them an amount that the Court would find appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicant asked the Court to award an amount that the Court would find appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The applicant claimed EUR 1,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The applicants were represented by SRJI/Astreya. Their aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to their legal representation amounted to EUR 4,445, which included the drafting of legal documents, translation services, and administrative and postal costs. They submitted copies of a legal representation contract and an invoice with a breakdown of the costs incurred.
The applicant was represented by SRJI/Astreya. Her aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to her legal representation amounted to EUR 4,536, which included the drafting of legal documents, translation services, and administrative and postal costs. She submitted copies of a legal representation contract and an invoice with a breakdown of the costs incurred.
The applicants were represented by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny. Their aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to their legal representation amounted to EUR 7,936, which included the drafting of legal documents, translation services and administrative costs. They submitted copies of a legal representation contract and an invoice for translation services.
The applicant was represented by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny. Her aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to her legal representation amounted to EUR 6,471, which included the drafting of legal documents, translation services and administrative costs. She submitted copies of a legal representation contract and an invoice for translation services.
The applicant did not make any claims under this head.
The Government submitted in respect of each application that the applicants’ claims for damages were unsubstantiated. They further maintained that a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants.
The Government further stated in respect of each application that the applicants’ claims for costs and expenses were unsubstantiated, as it had not been shown that the expenses claimed had actually been incurred. They also noted that the application forms and observations submitted by the applicants’ representatives were very similar to each other and therefore, the time and effort spent on the preparation of the documents did not correspond to the amounts claimed.
The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damages claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, where appropriate, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. The Court further finds that a loss of earnings may be claimed by close relatives of a disappeared person, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213).
Whenever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of the violation, and make a financial award.
As to costs and expenses, the Court first has to establish whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants’ representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A No. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, No. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
Having regard to the foregoing conclusions, the principles enumerated above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the amounts to the applicants as detailed in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on those amounts. The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts, as identified by the applicants.
Dismisses the Government’s objection regarding locus standi in respect of application Batariyeva v. Russia (No. 63535/10);
Decides to join to the merits the Government’s objection as to the applicability of Article 2 of the Convention and rejects it;
Declares the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives Mr Isa Mikiyev, Mr Artur Ibragimov, Mr Ramzan Shaipov, Mr Zelimkhan Batariyev and Mr Mansur Esuyev;
Application No., date of introduction
Applicant’s name, year of birth, relation to the disappeared person, place of residence
Abducted person(s) (name, year of birth, date and place of the alleged abduction)
Mikiyeva and Menchayeva v. Russia
(1) Ms Khedi MIKIYEVA (1981), daughter, Tsa-Vedeno, Vedeno district, the Chechen Republic
(2) Ms Lyubov MENCHAYEVA (1961), wife, idem
STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/ASTREYA
(1) Mr Isa MIKIYEV (1955), abducted from home on 3 May 2001 at around 7 a.m., Tsa-Vedeno
Criminal case No. 37061 opened on 25 November 2001 by the Vedeno district prosecutor’s office.
(1) Ms Deshi IBRAGIMOVA (1947), aunt, Shali, Shali district, the Chechen Republic
(1) Mr Artur IBRAGIMOV (1983), abducted on 16 July 2003 at 5 p.m., Shali
Criminal case No. 22109 opened on 28 July 2003 by the Shali district prosecutor’s office.
(1) Ms Ayshat KOSUMOVA (1981), wife, Chiri-Yurt, Shali district, the Chechen Republic
(4) Mr Deni SHAIPOV (2004), son, idem
Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV, a lawyer practising in Nazran, Ingushetia
(1) Mr Ramzan SHAIPOV (also spelled as SHOIPOV) (1974), abducted late at night on 8 May 2004 or in the early hours of 9 May 2004, Chiri-Yurt
Criminal case No. 36046 opened on 21 May 2004 by the Shali district prosecutor’s office.
(1) Ms Roza BATARIYEVA (1960), mother, Urus-Martan, Urus-Martan district, the Chechen Republic
Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV, a lawyer practising in Grozny, the Chechen Republic
(1) Mr Zelimkhan BATARIYEV (1982), abducted from his flat on 4 May 2001 at night, Grozny, the Chechen Republic
Criminal case No. 50113 opened on 31 July 2002 by the Grozny prosecutor’s office.
(1) Mr Batyr ESUYEV (1952), father, Verkhniy Gerzel, Gudermes district, the Chechen Republic
Mr Magomed Magomedov, a lawyer practising in Khasavyurt, the Republic of Dagestan
(1) Mr Mansur ESUYEV (1980), abducted from home on 11 January 2003 at around 4 a.m., Verkhniy Gerzel
Criminal case No. 32133 opened on 6 November 2003 by the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office.
EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to the first applicant;
EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the second applicant
(sixty thousand euros), jointly
EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), jointly
← Постановление ЕСПЧ от 30.01.2014 «Дело «Микиева и другие (Mikiyeva and Others) против Российской Федерации» (жалобы N 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 и 15695/11) [англ.] Часть 2
Постановление Суда Евразийского экономического союза от 21.01.2016 →