Tokens: 129
.
As
regards
pecuniary
damage
,
the
Government
pointed
out
that
the
second
applicant
had
failed
to
submit
any
evidence
.
As
regards
non‑pecuniary
damage
,
the
applicants
’
had
failed
to
show
a
causal
link
between
the
claimed
damages
and
the
alleged
violation
.
Nevertheless
,
should
the
causal
link
be
established
,
the
Government
was
of
the
opinion
that
the
finding
of
a
violation
in
itself
would
be
adequate
and
sufficient
(
they
referred
to
Aman
n
v.
Switzerland
[
GC
]
,
no
.
27798/95
,
§
94
,
ECHR
2000‑II
)
.
In
the
alternative
,
the
Government
considered
that
the
amount
claimed
by
the
applicants
was
unjustified
,
excessive
and
exorbitant
.
The
Government
considered
that
the
cases
of
Zubaľ
v.
Slovakia
(
no
.
44065/06
,
§
49
,
9
November
2010
)
and
Sorvisto
v.
Finland
(
no
.
19348/04
,
§
128
,
13
January
2009
)
were
similar
to
the
instant
case
.
Any
award
in
the
present
case
should
not
exceed
the
awards
made
in
those
cases
(
EUR
3,000
and
EUR
2,500
,
respectively
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O