European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ISRAILOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 34909/12 and 4 others - see list appended)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
(Revision)

 

STRASBOURG

21 July 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

In the case of Israilovy and Others v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 24 September 2019),

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Georgios A. Serghides, President,
          Gilberto Felici,
          Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 June 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in five applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) listed in Appendix II.

2.  In a judgment delivered on 24 September 2019, the Court found substantive and procedural violations of Article 2 of the Convention and a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as well as a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2, and in conjunction with Article 3 in one case. It also decided that there was no separate issue under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 in one application.

3.  In the above-mentioned judgment, the Court decided to award the applicants compensation for damage in the amounts set out in the table appended to that judgment. In particular, as regards compensation for non‑pecuniary damage, it decided to award 80,000 euros (EUR) to the applicants in application no. 34909/12, to be paid to the six applicants jointly along with any tax that might be chargeable to them on that amount.

4.  On 13 November 2019 the Government informed the Court that they had learned from the wife of the fourth applicant in application no. 34909/12, Ms Yakhita Dadayeva, that her husband, Mr Rizvan Israilov, had died on 12 February 2019. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

5.  On 11 February 2020 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants in application no. 34909/12 an opportunity to submit any comments by 29 March 2020. Those comments were received by the Court on 15 March 2020.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

6.  The Government requested revision of the judgment of 24 September 2019, a judgment which they had been unable to execute because the fourth applicant in application no. 34909/12 (Mr Rizvan Israilov) had died before the judgment had been adopted. They noted that the applicants had failed to comply with their obligation to inform the Court of his death, and that none of his next of kin had expressed a wish to pursue the application in his stead. Therefore, the Government argued that no award for non-pecuniary damage should be made in respect of Mr Rizvan Israilov, and that the sum of compensation awarded to the applicants jointly should be reduced accordingly. At the same time, the Government enclosed the official certificate of inheritance issued on 9 October 2019 in the name of Ms Yakhita Dadayeva, explicitly authorising her as Mr Rizvan Israilov’s heir to receive his share of the just satisfaction award for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 13,333.

7.  The applicants stated that Mr Israilov’s death had not had a decisive influence on the outcome of the proceedings before the Court.

8.  The Court accepts the Government’s argument that Mr Israilov’s death had a decisive influence on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, namely the allocation of sums under Article 41 of the Convention.

9.  The Court considers that the judgment of 24 September 2019 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80, the relevant parts of which provide:

“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment.”

10.  Having regard to the parties’ submissions, the Court revises the judgment in relation to the part concerning the just satisfaction award for non-pecuniary damage made to the applicants in application no. 34909/12 (see Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no. 68860/10, 4 February 2016). The revised part of the judgment in the form of a table is set out in Appendix I.

11.  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 revise its judgment of 24 September 2019 in so far as it concerns the application of Article 41 of the Convention to the claims of the applicants in application no. 34909/12;

2.      Holds accordingly,

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in application no. 34909/12, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendix I, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The award in respect of costs and expenses is to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants;

(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;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 July 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova                                                            Georgios A. Serghides
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President

 

Appendix I

Application no. Lodged on	Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Kinship with the abducted person(s)	Abducted person(s) Date of disappearance	Represented by	Pecuniary damage	Non‑pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses
34909/12 16/05/2012	1) Ms Satsita ISRAILOVA 1947 Grushevoye Mother   2) Mr Visarg ISRAILOV 1966 Grushevoye Brother   3) Mr Vakhid ISRAILOV 1978 Grushevoye Brother   4) Mr Rizvan ISRAILOV 1965 Grushevoye Brother (died on 12/02/2019, his wife Ms Yakhita Dadayeva, who was born in 1968, is his heir) 5) Mr Ayndi ISRAILOV 1975 Grushevoye Brother   6) Ms Rumisa ISRAILOVA 1980 Grushevoye Sister	Mr Abdul‑Mezhid Israilov Disappeared on 27/07/2003	Mr Tagir SHAMSUDINOV	Claimed by the applicants
				EUR 10,000 to the first applicant	EUR 90,000 to the applicants jointly	EUR 2,483
				Awarded by the Court
				EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the first applicant	EUR 66,667 (sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty-seven euros) to the first, second, third, fifth and sixth applicants jointly and EUR 13,333 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty‑three euros) to Ms Yakhita Dadayeva, who was born in 1968	EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros)

 

 

Appendix iI

1.   34909/12         Israilovy and Others v. Russia

2.   36883/12         Shabazovy v. Russia

3.   38383/12         Asukhanovy v. Russia

4.   40162/12         Asabayeva and Others v. Russia

5.   26893/13         Gelayevy v. Russia