Постановление ЕСПЧ от 09.02.2016 <Дело Назурова и другие (Nazyrova and Others) против России> (жалобы N 21126/09, 63620/09, 64811/09, 32965/10 и 64270/11) [англ.] Часть 2

1   2

  1. The Court’s assessment
  1. General principles

 

  1. Although the respondent Government did not raise any objection under this head in respect of four out of the five applications (see paragraph 110 above), this issue calls for the Court’ s consideration proprio motu (see v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4704/04, § 48, 15 February 2011).
  2. A summary of the principles concerning the compliance with the six-month rule in disappearance cases may be found in Sultygov and Others v. Russia (nos. 42575/07, 53679/07, 311/08, 424/08, 3375/08, 4560/08, 35569/08, 62220/10, 3222/11, 22257/11, 24744/11 and 36897/11, §§ 369 — 74, 9 October 2014).

 

  1. Application of the principles to the present case

 

  1. Turning to the circumstances of the applications at hand, the Court notes that the investigations were pending when the applicants lodged their respective applications with the Court and are still in progress. It further notes that in each case the applicants complained to the authorities after the abduction and lodged their application with the Court within less than ten years of the incident and the initiation of the investigation (see Varnava and Others, cited above, § 166).
  2. The Court observes significant breaks in the criminal proceedings, when the investigation remained suspended. For instance, there was a break of almost six years and two months in Nazyrova (no. 21126/09), eight years and eight months in Babuyeva (no. 63620/09), seven years in Kagermanov and Yakhayeva (no. 64811/09), nine years in Tchapanova (no. 32965/10) and six years in Alkhotova (no. 64270/11). It further observes that the applicants were not informed of the decisions to suspend before these breaks, and that the proceedings were resumed at their request (see paragraphs 22, 43, 55, 80 and 104 above).
  3. The Court notes that such long periods of inactivity on the part of the authorities could have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the pending investigations and could have compelled the applicants to lodge their applications with the Court at an earlier date. However, it also notes the authorities’ failure to provide the applicants with information concerning the investigations, including the decisions to suspend them (see paragraphs 21, 37, 42, 54, 74 and 98 above).
  4. From the documents submitted, it appears that in all of the cases at hand the applicants did all that could be expected of them to assist the authorities with the investigations into their relatives’ disappearance. Taking into account the applicants’ explanations concerning their compliance with the six-month rule and their efforts to resume the dormant proceedings (see paragraphs 22, 43, 55, 80 and 104 above), keeping in mind the overall time frame for lodging their applications with the Court and having regard to the complexity of the cases and the nature of the alleged human rights violations at stake, the Court concludes that it was reasonable for the applicants to wait for developments that could have resolved crucial factual or legal issues (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 142, ECHR 2012). The Court notes that having no information on the progress of the proceedings, the applicants or their relatives either lodged requests for information, asked to familiarise themselves with the contents of the investigation files or complained about the investigations in the hope of expediting the proceedings (see paragraphs 24, 41 — 42, 55 — 56, 75, 75, 99 and 104 above). Further to their requests, the authorities resumed the dormant proceedings and took steps to obtain evidence (see paragraphs 22, 43, 56, 62, 80 and 104 above). The Court therefore considers that the breaks in the domestic investigations cannot be held against the applicants or interpreted as their failure to comply with the six-month requirement by unreasonably waiting for the pending investigation to yield results (see, for a similar situation, Sultygov and Others, cited above, §§ 375 — 80).
  5. The Court thus considers that investigations, albeit sporadic, were being conducted during the periods in question, and that the applicants explained the delay in their applications to the Court by the way in which the domestic proceedings developed (see Varnava and Others, cited above, § 166). In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit.

 

III. Compliance with the exhaustion rule

  1. The parties’ submissions
  1. Government

 

  1. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as the investigations into the disappearances were still in progress. In addition, the applicants could have appealed against the investigators’ decisions in the domestic courts or lodged a civil claim for damages.

 

  1. The applicants

 

  1. The applicants, referring to the Court’s case-law, submitted that they were not obliged to pursue civil remedies, and that lodging complaints against the investigators would not have remedied the shortcomings of the investigations. They submitted that the only effective remedy — a criminal investigation — had proved to be ineffective.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment

 

  1. As regards a civil claim for damages, the Court has already found in a number of similar disappearance cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119 — 21, 24 February 2005). Accordingly, the objection in this regard is dismissed.
  2. As regards criminal-law remedies, the Court has concluded that the ineffective investigation of disappearances that have occurred in Chechnya between 2000 and 2006 constitutes a systemic problem, and that criminal investigations are not an effective remedy in this regard (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 217).
  3. In such circumstances, and noting the absence over the years of tangible progress in any of the criminal investigations into the abductions of the applicants’ relatives, the Court concludes that this objection must be dismissed, since the remedy relied on by the Government is not effective in the circumstances.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment of the evidence and the establishment of the facts
  1. The parties’ submissions
  1. The Government

 

  1. The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application, but submitted that the applicants’ allegations were based on assumptions as there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions, or that the applicants’ relatives were dead.

 

  1. The applicants

 

  1. The applicants submitted that it had been established «beyond reasonable doubt» that the men who had taken their relatives had been State agents. In support of that assertion, they referred to evidence contained in their submissions and documents from the criminal investigation files disclosed by the Government. They also submitted that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by State agents, but the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government. Given the lack of any news about their relatives for a long time and the life-threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in Chechnya at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment
  1. General principles

 

  1. A summary of the principles concerning assessment of evidence and establishment of facts in disappearance cases and the life-threatening nature of such incidents may be found in Sultygov and Others (cited above, §§ 393 — 96).

 

  1. Application of the above principles to the present case

 

(a) Application no. 21126/09, Nazyrova v. Russia

  1. Witness statements collected by the applicant, along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government, confirm that her brother, Mr Nazyrov, was abducted in Gekhi on 20 April 2000 by a group of servicemen during a special operation (see, for example, paragraphs 16 and 20 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her brother was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by her.
  2. The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.
  3. Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Nazyrov was taken into custody by State agents on 20 April 2000. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the life-threatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), it also finds that Mr Nazyrov may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

(b) Application no. 63620/09, Babuyeva v. Russia

  1. Witness statements collected by the applicant, along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government, confirm that her husband, Mr Babuyev, was abducted in Khankala on 30 August 2002 by State servicemen (see, for example, paragraphs 33 and 34 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by her.
  2. The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.
  3. Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Babuyev was taken into custody by State agents on 30 August 2002. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the life-threatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), it also finds that Mr Babuyev may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

(c) Application no. 64811/09, Kagermanov and Yakhayeva v. Russia

  1. Witness statements collected by the applicants and copies of part of the investigation file submitted by them to the Court confirm that their relative, Mr Kagermanov, was abducted from his home in Gekhi on 4 February 2002 during curfew hours by a group of servicemen during a special operation (see, for example, paragraphs 52 and 53 above). In view of the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by them.
  2. The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.
  3. Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Kagermanov was taken into custody by State agents on 4 February 2002. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the life-threatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), it also finds that Mr Kagermanov may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

(d) Application no. 32965/10, Tchapanova v. Russia

  1. Witness statements collected by the applicant, along with a small number of documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government, confirm that her husband, Mr Zaynadinov, was abducted in in Shali on 30 July 2002 by a group of servicemen (see, for example, paragraphs 71 and 75 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by her.
  2. The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.
  3. Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Zaynadinov was taken into custody by State agents on 30 July 2002. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the life-threatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), the Court also finds that Mr Zaynadinov may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

(e) Application no. 64270/11, Alkhotova v. Russia

  1. Witness statements collected by the applicant, along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government, confirm that her husband, Mr Diniyev, was abducted in Grozny on 16 August 2003 by a group of servicemen (see, for example, paragraphs 88 and 92 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by her.
  2. The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.
  3. Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Diniyev was taken into custody by State agents on 16 August 2003. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the life-threatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), it also finds that Mr Diniyev may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

 

  1. Summary of the conclusions

 

  1. The Court finds that in all the cases presently before it, the applicants’ allegations are supported by both the witness statements collected by them and the domestic investigations. In their submissions to the authorities, the applicants maintained that their relatives had been abducted by State agents. The investigative authorities accepted as fact the primary versions of events presented by the applicants and took steps to check whether State servicemen were involved in the abductions.
  2. In summary, the facts of all the applications contain sufficient evidence to enable the Court to make findings about the carrying out of security operations and thus about the State’s exclusive control over the detainees (see, among many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 114). The Government’s arguments stand in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by the Court and are insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in such cases.
  3. The detention in life-threatening circumstances of Mr Badrudi Nazyrov, Mr Muma Babuyev, Mr Ruslan Kagermanov, Mr Eduard Zaynadinov and Mr Ayndi Diniyev, together with the lack of any news about them for a number of years, leads the Court to conclude that they may be presumed dead.

 

  1. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

 

  1. The applicants complained, under Article 2 of the Convention, that their relatives had disappeared after being detained by State agents, and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out investigations into the matter effectively. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:

«1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

  1. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.»

 

  1. The parties’ submissions

 

  1. The Government contended that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. They also submitted that no evidence had been obtained in the domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control, or were dead. They pointed out that the mere fact that the investigative measures taken had not produced any specific results, or had yielded only limited results, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.
  2. The applicants maintained their complaints.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment
  1. Admissibility

 

  1. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

 

  1. Merits

 

(a) Alleged violation of the right to life of the applicants’ relatives

  1. The Court has already found that in all of the applications under examination, the applicants’ relatives may be presumed dead, following their unacknowledged detention by State agents. In the absence of any form of justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that their deaths can be attributed to the State and that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Badrudi Nazyrov, Mr Muma Babuyev, Mr Ruslan Kagermanov, Mr Eduard Zaynadinov and Mr Ayndi Diniyev.

(b) Alleged inadequacy of the investigations into the abductions

  1. The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances which have occurred, in particular, in Chechnya between 1999 and 2006, and that such a situation constitutes a systemic problem under the Convention (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 217). In the cases at hand, as in many previous similar cases reviewed by the Court, the investigations have been pending for many years without bringing about any significant developments as to the identities of the perpetrators or the fate of the applicants’ missing relatives. While the obligation to investigate effectively is one of means and not of results, the Court notes that each set of criminal proceedings has been plagued by a combination of defects similar to those enumerated in the Aslakhanova and Others judgment (cited above, §§ 123 — 25). Each was subjected to several decisions to suspend the investigation, followed by periods of inactivity, which further diminished the prospects of solving the crimes. No meaningful steps have been taken to identify and question the servicemen who could have witnessed, registered or participated in the operations.
  2. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities have failed to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances of the disappearance and death of Mr Badrudi Nazyrov, Mr Muma Babuyev, Mr Ruslan Kagermanov, Mr Eduard Zaynadinov and Mr Ayndi Diniyev. Accordingly, there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.

 

  1. Alleged violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention

 

  1. 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, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:

Article 3

«No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.»

Article 5

«1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

  1. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
  2. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
  3. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
  4. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.»

Article 13

«Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.»

 

  1. The parties’ submissions

 

  1. The Government contested the applicants’ claims.
  2. The applicants reiterated their complaints.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment
  1. Admissibility

 

  1. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

 

  1. Merits

 

  1. The Court has found on many occasions that a situation of enforced disappearance gives rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention 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 v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). Where the news about a missing person’s death has been preceded by a sufficiently long period when he or she has been deemed to have disappeared, there exists a distinct period during which the applicants have sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic of the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
  2. Equally, the Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly serious violation of its provisions (see v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 122).
  3. 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 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.
  4. The Court also 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 serious violation of the right to liberty and security of persons enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.
  5. The Court reiterates its findings regarding the general ineffectiveness of criminal investigations in cases such as those under examination. In the absence of the results of a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice.
  6. The Court thus finds that the applicants in these cases did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Articles 2 and 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

 

VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

 

  1. 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.»

 

  1. Damage

 

  1. The applicant in Nazyrova v. Russia (no. 21126/09) did not claim pecuniary damage, but claimed 60,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  2. The applicant in Babuyeva v. Russia (no. 63620/09) claimed 997,089 Russian roubles (RUB) (about EUR 20,000) in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of financial support from the main breadwinner. She based her calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law and the Ogden Actuary Tables. She also claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  3. The applicants in Kagermanov and Yakhayeva v. Russia (no. 64811/09) did not claim pecuniary damage, but claimed EUR 100,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  4. The applicant in Tchapanova v. Russia (no. 32965/10) did not claim pecuniary damage, but claimed EUR 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  5. The applicant in Alkhotova v. Russia (no. 64270/11) did not claim pecuniary damage, but claimed EUR 60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  6. The Government submitted that in Babuyeva v. Russia (no. 63620/09) the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated, and that there was a domestic mechanism for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage resulting from the loss of a breadwinner.
  7. As regards the claims for non-pecuniary damage, the Government stated in respect of each application that the amount of compensation should be determined on an equitable basis, and that finding a violation of the Convention would constitute just satisfaction for the applicants.

 

  1. Costs and expenses

 

  1. The applicants in Nazyrova v. Russia (no. 21126/09) and Alkhotova v. Russia (no. 64270/11) were represented by Mr Said Mushayev. The aggregate claims in respect of costs and expenses related to their legal representation amounted to EUR 4,900 and EUR 2,500 respectively, which represented legal costs incurred before the national authorities and before the Court.
  2. The applicants in Babuyeva v. Russia (no. 63620/09) and Kagermanov and Yakhayeva v. Russia (no. 64811/09) were represented by SRJI/Astreya. The aggregate claims in respect of costs and expenses related to their legal representation amounted to EUR 2,707 and EUR 4,062 respectively, which included the drafting of legal documents, translation services and administrative and postage costs. The applicants submitted copies of their legal representation contracts and invoices with breakdowns of the costs incurred.
  3. The applicant in Tchapanova v. Russia (no. 32965/10) was represented by Mr Nino Parravicini. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicant’s legal representation before the Court amounted to EUR 5,000.
  4. The Government submitted in respect of each claim for costs and expenses that the amount claimed was excessive and unreasonable, and that the claim should be rejected as unsubstantiated.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment

 

  1. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damages claimed by 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 loss of earnings applies to close relatives of the disappeared persons, including spouses, elderly parents and children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213).
  2. Wherever 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 a violation, and make a financial award.
  3. As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
  4. Having regard to the conclusions and principles set out above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts detailed in the Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts. The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants.

 

  1. Default interest

 

  1. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

 

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Declares the applications admissible;
  3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives Mr Badrudi Nazyrov, Mr Muma Babuyev, Mr Ruslan Kagermanov, Mr Eduard Zaynadinov and Mr Ayndi Diniyev;
  4. Holds that there has been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to investigate the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives;
  5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants, on account of their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ response to their suffering;
  6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention;
  7. Holds there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention;
  8. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the amounts as indicated in the Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. The payments in respect of costs and expenses to the applicants’ representatives are to be made to the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants; the payments are to be made in euros in respect of the applicants represented by SRJI/Astreya and Mr Nino Parravicini, and to be converted into the currency of the respondent State in respect of the applicants represented by Mr Said Mushayev;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

  1. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

 

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Luis  GUERRA President

Marialena TSIRLI Deputy Registrar

Appendix I

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATIONS

No. Application no. Case details

Date of introduction/date of communication/representative

Applicants’ details (family relations, date of birth, place of residence) Persons abducted, year of birth, date and place of abduction Investigation of the disappearance
1. 21126//09

 

Nazyrova v. Russia

Lodged on 26/02/2009

 

Communicated on 31/08/2011

 

Represented by Mr Said Mushayev

Ms Maret Nazyrova (1968), sister, Gekhi, the Chechen Republic Mr Badrudi Nazyrov (1973), abducted on 20 April 2000 in Gekhi, the Chechen Republic. On 25 November 2000 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 24074. The investigation is still pending.
2. 63620/09

 

Babuyeva v. Russia

Lodged on

18/11/2009

 

Communicated on

08/06/2011

 

Represented by SRJI/ Astreya

Ms Satsita Babuyeva (1958), wife, Grozny, the Chechen Republic Mr Muma Babuyev (1958), abducted on 30 August 2000 in Khankala, the Chechen Republic. On 22 September 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 52112. The investigation is still pending.
3. 64811/09

 

Kagermanov and Yakhayeva v. Russia

Lodged on 24/11/2009

 

Communicated on

31/08/2011

 

Represented by SRJI/ Astreya

(1) Mr Adam Kagermanov (1971), brother, Gekhi, the Chechen Republic;

 

(2) Ms Zura Yakhayeva (also spelled Yakhyayeva) (1977), niece, Gekhi, the Chechen Republic

Mr Ruslan Kagermanov (1963), abducted on 4 February 2002 in Gekhi, the Chechen Republic. On 18 February 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61023. The investigation is still pending.
4. 32965/10

 

Tchapanova v. Russia

Lodged on

08/06/2010

 

Communicated on

31/08/2011

 

Represented by Mr Nino Parravicini

Ms Khedi Tchapanova (1974), wife, Nice, France Mr Eduard Zaynadinov (also spelled Zainadinov) (1974), abducted on 30 July 2002 in Shali, the Chechen Republic. On 16 September 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59229. The investigation is still pending.
5. 64270//11

 

Alkhotova

v. Russia

Lodged on

14/09/2011

 

Communicated on

17/01/2012

Represented by Mr Said Mushayev

Ms Ayna (also spelled Aina) Alkhotova (1975), wife, Grozny, the Chechen Republic Mr Ayndi (also spelled Aindi) Diniyev (1971), abducted on 16 August 2003 in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. On 29 August 2003 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 50094. The investigation is still pending.

 

Appendix II

AWARDS MADE BY THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

Application number and name Represented by Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses
1. 21126//09

Nazyrova v. Russia

Mr Said Mushayev EUR 60,000

(sixty thousand euros)

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)
2. 63620/09

Babuyeva v. Russia

SRJI/Astreya EUR 10,000

(ten thousand euros)

EUR 60,000

(sixty thousand euros)

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
3. 64811/09

Kagermanov and Yakhayeva v. Russia

SRJI/Astreya EUR 60,000

(sixty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
4. 32965/10

Tchapanova v. Russia

Mr Nino Parravicini EUR 40,000

(forty thousand euros)

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)
5. 64270//11

Alkhotova v. Russia

Mr Said Mushayev EUR 60,000

(sixty thousand euros)

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

1   2

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован.

*

code