THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KHAMKHOYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application s no s . 6636/09 and 9 other s – see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

28 May 2019

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

In the case of Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia,

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

Branko Lubarda, President, Georgios A. Serghides, Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2019 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in ten 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”). The application numbers and the dates on which they were lodged with the Court as well as the applicants ’ personal details are listed in the appended table.

2 . The applicants were represented by various NGOs and lawyers indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3 . Between 15 October 2015 and 25 January 2016 notice of the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 in conjunction with these provisions was given to the Government, and the rem ainder of the applications nos. 58501/09, 67344/09 and 22170/11 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

4 . The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee.

THE FACTS

5 . The applicants are Russian nationals who at the material time lived either in the Chechen Republic or the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2000-2006 after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants received no news of their missing relatives thereafter.

6 . In each of the cases the applicants complained of the respective abduction to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. The proceedings in respect of each case, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without any tangible results having been attained. As can be seen from the documents submitted, no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than their forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities generally reported in respect of each case that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction in question had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time. The applicants also lodged with various authorities requests for information and assistance in the search for their missing relatives but received only formal responses, if any. The identities of the perpetrators have never been established by the investigating authorities. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending.

7 . Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account of events is based on statements provided to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities by the applicants, their relatives and/or neighbours, and other witnesses. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases, as presented by the applicants, but contested the involvement of servicemen in the events in question.

8 . The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, who was born in 1972. The first applicant is his wife, the second applicant is his sister and the third and fourth applicants are his children.

9 . The facts of the present application have already been examined by the Court in Bekova v. Russia (no. 53679/07) in respect of the abduction of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev (see Sultygov and Others v. Russia , no s . 42575/07 and 11 others , §§ 40-80, 9 October 2014).

10 . At the material time Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev worked at a construction site located at Moscovskaya Street in Nazran, Ingushetia. At about 9.30 a.m. on 29 September 2005 he was in the workers ’ trailer at the construction site when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into it. Most of the armed men were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian.

11 . Having broken into the trailer, the armed men immediately started beating Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev and dragged him outside. Two men ‑ Mr M ‑ A.B. and Mr Ruslan Yandiyev, who were also present at the site ‑ tried to intervene but the armed men took them outside and forced them into their vehicles. They then put Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, unconscious and bleeding, into the boot of one of the vehicles and drove away with the three men. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

12 . The whereabouts of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev remain unknown.

13 . For the main witness statements and investigative steps taken by the authorities, see Sultygov and Others (ibid., §§ 50-80).

14 . On 29 September 2005 Mr M.-B.M. lodged a complaint with the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office regarding the abduction of his brother (Mr M.-A.B.), Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev and an unknown third man. The investigators immediately examined the crime scene and found a substance resembling blood on a fragment of broken glass.

15 . On 9 October 2005 the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 05560115 into the abduction of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, Mr M.-A.B. and Mr Ruslan Yandiyev.

16 . On 15 October 2005 the mother of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev was granted victim status in the criminal case.

17 . On 29 December 2005 and 18 September 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated that her husband had been abducted by unknown people on 29 September 2005 from his place of work.

18 . On an unknown date (apparently in 2008) the first applicant was granted victim status.

19 . On 17 April 2007 the investigators informed the first applicant that operational search activities were in progress with the aim of establishing her husband ’ s whereabouts.

20 . On 27 February 2008 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform her of any progress in the proceedings.

21 . On 5 April 2008 the investigators again questioned the first applicant. On 14 April 2008 they questioned the second applicant.

22 . The investigation into the abduction was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions. It was last suspended on 24 May 2015. The investigation is still pending.

23 . The applicant was the wife of Mr Ibragim Idrisov, who was born in 1951. She died on 24 August 2011. Her daughter, Ms Larisa Ibayeva (also spelled as Larissa Ibaeva), who is also the daughter of the disappeared Mr Ibragim Idrisov, expressed her wish to pursue the application.

24 . On 27 January 2002 Mr Ibragim Idrisov went to Shali, Chechnya, for a work-related purpose. On the same date servicemen from the Shali district temporary department of the interior (“the VOVD”) arrested him and placed him in a temporary detention ward on the premises of the VOVD police station. His GAZ-2410 vehicle was seized and placed in the station ’ s inner courtyard.

25 . Following Mr Ibragim Idrisov ’ s arrest the applicant was informed thereof. From 28 January 2002 until 2 February 2002 she visited him regularly in the VOVD, bringing him food and warm clothing.

26 . On the morning of 3 February 2002, when the applicant came to visit her husband in the VOVD as usual, she was informed that Mr Ibragim Idrisov had been released the day before, on 2 February 2002. Meanwhile, Mr Ibragim Idrisov ’ s GAZ-2410 vehicle remained parked on the premises of the VOVD.

27 . The whereabouts of Mr Ibragim Idrisov remain unknown.

28 . On 11 February 2002 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office requesting assistance in the search for her husband.

29 . On 13 February 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 59053 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

30 . On 20 February 2002 Major A.Sh., the head of the VOVD, issued a report stating that Mr Ibragim Idrisov had been detained on 27 January 2002, placed in the VOVD ’ s temporary detention ward and then released on 2 February 2002. His vehicle remained on the VOVD premises.

31 . On 8 August 2002 the investigators informed the applicant that the proceedings in respect of the criminal case had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

32 . On 14 January 2003 the investigation was resumed.

33 . On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2004 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance of her husband and requested assistance in the search for him. She received letters in reply stating, in particular, that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish her husband ’ s whereabouts.

34 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

35 . The applicant is the wife of Mr Magomed Dadulagov, who was born in 1951.

36 . On 9 December 2003 Mr Magomed Dadulagov was buying sugar at the market in Nazran, Ingushetia when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a grey UAZ-469 ( tabletka ) vehicle without registration plates. The servicemen forced Mr Magomed Dadulagov into the vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination. His GAZ-2410 vehicle, in which he had driven to the market, also disappeared. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

37 . The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Dadulagov remain unknown.

38 . On 31 December 2003 the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 03560091 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

39 . The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Magomed Dadulagov was available.

40 . On 8 January 2004 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

41 . On 15 January 2004 the investigators questioned Mr S., who worked at the market. He stated that on 9 December 2003 a Chechen man had arrived in a GAZ-2410 vehicle and had asked to buy sugar from him. When Mr S. had come out of his kiosk with sugar and change he had seen this man lying on the ground. He had been surrounded by about seven men, some of them wearing balaclavas. One of the assailants had threatened the market tradespeople with a gun and told them all to stand still. Then the assailants had forced the Chechen man into a UAZ-469 vehicle and had left. One of them had got into the driving seat of the above-mentioned GAZ-2410 vehicle and had followed behind the UAZ-469. Some of the abductors had been of Slavic appearance; others had been of Asiatic appearance. They had carried firearms with silencers. In Mr S. ’ s opinion, this had been a planned operation by the secret services. The next day the son of the abducted man had come searching for him; Mr S. had returned to him the money left by his father.

42 . On 31 March 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

43 . On several occasions between 2006 and 2010 the applicant complained to various State authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband. Some replies contained statements to the effect that the necessary operational activities were being carried out.

44 . On 23 January 2014 a lawyer retained by the applicant sent a request to the head of the Nazran Investigative Committee asking him to provide him with copies of certain case-file documents. On 6 February 2014 he received a reply that the investigation had been suspended on 31 March 2004.

45 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

46 . According to the Government, on 25 May 2015 the Shali Town Court of the Chechen Republic ( Шалинский городской суд Чеченской Республики ), at the applicant ’ s request, declared Mr Magomed Dadulagov dead.

47 . The applicant is the wife of Mr Rizvan Bashayev, who was born in 1962.

48 . On 20 December 2000 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 20 February 2001) Mr Rizvan Bashayev left his sister ’ s house in Grozny and never returned.

49 . The whereabouts of Mr Rizvan Bashayev have remained unknown ever since.

50 . On 26 January 2001 Zavodskoy District police station in Grozny opened a search file ( розыскное дело – no. 102004) in respect of Mr Rizvan Bashayev. It is unclear whether any measures for establishing his whereabouts were undertaken.

51 . On an unspecified date in 2002 the Grozny District Court of the Chechen Republic – in response to a request lodged by the applicant – declared her husband missing. The court found, in particular, that Mr Rizvan Bashayev had disappeared on 20 December 2000 after his arrest at a roadblock in the village of Komsomolskoye. The court also referred to the applicant ’ s statements that she had lodged a complaint with Zavodskoy District police station, whose officers had been searching for her husband, but to no avail.

52 . On 29 October 2005 a police officer from Zavodskoy District police station interviewed Ms S., the sister of Mr Rizvan Bashayev. She stated that on 21 December 2001 at around 3 p.m. her brother had come to visit her at the market, where she worked. After having a meal with her at a café, he had left the café to have a smoke but had promised to return. She had not seen her brother since.

53 . On 31 October 2005 the Zavodskoy District prosecutor ’ s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 41209 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).

54 . On 20 and 23 November 2005 the investigators questioned the relatives of Mr Rizvan Bashayev, who gave statements that were similar to that of Ms S.

55 . On 26 November 2005 Ms S. was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.

56 . On 28 November 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene.

57 . On 29 November 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

58 . On various dates the investigators sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities. Most of the responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Rizvan Bashayev was available.

59 . On 31 December 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof.

60 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

61 . The applicants are close relatives of Mr Khizir Galtakov (also spelled as Goltakov), who was born in 1969. The first applicant is his wife; the second, third and fourth applicants are his children. The fifth applicant was the mother of Mr Khizir Galtakov; she died in March 2017.

62 . At about 11 p.m. on 17 May 2005 Mr Khizir Galtakov and his friend Mr K. were in the village of Znamenskoye, Chechnya, at the intersection of Shosseynaya Street and the road between Ken ‑ Yurt and Bratskoye, when a group of about six armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a grey UAZ vehicle without registration plates. The men forced Mr Khizir Galtakov into the vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination.

63 . The whereabouts of Mr Khizir Galtakov remain unknown.

64 . On 18 May 2005 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction of her husband and requested assistance in the search for him. A few hours later a task force examined the crime scene.

65 . On 28 May 2005 the Nadterechniy district prosecutor ’ s office in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 49007 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

66 . On 1 June 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

67 . On 2 June 2005 the investigators questioned Mr K., whose statement concerning the circumstances of Khizir Galtakov ’ s abduction was similar to the applicants ’ submissions to the Court.

68 . Over the next few days the investigators questioned several other witnesses who had found out about the events of 17 May 2005, mostly from Mr K. or through hearsay.

69 . The investigators also sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Khizir Galtakov was available.

70 . On 28 July 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof on 11 January 2007.

71 . On 9 September 2008 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior issued a certificate confirming the circumstances of Mr Khizir Galtakov ’ s abduction, as described by the applicants.

72 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

73 . On 31 October 2008 the Nadterechniy District Court in the Chechen Republic declared Mr Khizir Galtakov a missing person.

74 . The applicants are close relatives of Mr Sharudi Obrugov, who was born in 1980. The first applicant is his father and the second applicant is his mother. The third applicant was his brother; he died on 28 May 2011.

75 . At about 5 p.m. on 14 August 2002 Mr Sharudi Obrugov was with his friends at the crossroads of Melnichnaya and Lugovaya Streets in Argun when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a white VAZ-2107 car with tinted windows and a Gazel minivan without registration plates. Speaking Russian, the servicemen ordered Mr Sharudi Obrugov and his friends to lie face down on the ground and to put their hands behind their backs. Having searched them and checked their identity documents, the servicemen handcuffed Mr Obrugov, forced him into the minivan and drove off to an unknown destination.

76 . Immediately after the abduction, the first applicant went to the Argun military commander ’ s office, where one of the officers confirmed that his son had been detained by military servicemen. The first applicant also learned from the officer that Mr Sharudi Obrugov had been transferred to the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala.

77 . The whereabouts of Mr Sharudi Obrugov remain unknown.

78 . On 18 September 2002 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Argun Town Police Office regarding the abduction of his son.

79 . On 1 October 2002 the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 78094 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

80 . On 19 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status.

81 . On the same date the investigators questioned Mr I.I. and Mr A.A., two friends of Mr Sharudi Obrugov who had witnessed his abduction. They affirmed the account of events submitted by the applicants.

82 . On 25 October 2002 the investigators sent a letter to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) asking whether any security operation had been carried out on 14 August 2002 and whether Mr Sharudi Obrugov had participated in any illegal armed groups on the territory of the Chechen Republic. The FSB replied in the negative.

83 . The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. Most of the responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Sharudi Obrugov was available.

84 . On 1 December 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 8 May 2003 and suspended again on 8 June 2003.

85 . On 2 June 2005 the investigation was resumed. On 20 June 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene and the house where Mr Sharudi Obrugov had lived before his abduction. On 2 July 2005 the investigation was suspended.

86 . In 2007 operational search activities aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr Sharudi Obrugov were carried out. Police officers interviewed his neighbours and relatives and examined cemeteries, but to no avail.

87 . On 19 February 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be informed of any progress in the proceedings. Her request was refused.

88 . On 21 May 2010 the second applicant requested the investigators to grant her full access to the criminal case file. Full access was granted.

89 . On 9 October 2010 the investigation was resumed. The investigators sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities and questioned Mr A.A., the second applicant and the cousins of Mr Sharudi Obrugov. The investigators also ordered a forensic DNA examination.

90 . On 29 November 2010 the investigation was suspended. At the same time, the investigators ordered that operational search activities be carried out, with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of Mr Sharudi Obrugov.

91 . On 5 October 2011 the investigation was resumed. The first applicant was granted “civil claimant” status ( гражданский истец ) in the criminal case. On 6 October 2011 the investigation was suspended.

92 . On several occasions between 2002 and 2010 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance of their son and requested assistance in the search for him. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their son ’ s whereabouts.

93 . On 13 January 2012 the NGO Materi Chechni, acting on behalf of the second applicant, asked the head of the Chechen Parliamentary Committee on the search for the Disappeared ( Комитет Парламента Чеченской Республики по поиску лиц , без вести пропавших в период проведения контртеррористической операции ) for assistance in the search of Mr Obrugov. On 12 March 2012 the investigators replied that operational search activities were being undertaken in order to establish his whereabouts.

94 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

95 . On 23 September 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the investigators ’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic steps. On 18 October 2010 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that on 9 October 2010 the investigation had been resumed. On 8 December 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

96 . The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ayub Bakhayev, who was born in 1979. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his brother, and the third applicant is his sister.

97 . At about 1 p.m. on 13 October 2001 Mr Ayub Bakhayev left his home at 25a Melnichnaya Street in Argun to go to the pharmacy. He was heading towards the pharmacy when a group of approximately six armed servicemen in military uniforms and balaclavas arrived in two VAZ-2106 vehicles with registration plates allegedly comprising the digits “680 95 RUS” and “689 95 RUS”. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen threatened passers-by with firearms and warned them to stand still. Then they searched Mr Ayub Bakhayev, forced him into one of the vehicles and drove to the premises of the Argun district military commander ’ s office.

98 . Subsequently, on several occasions, both of the above-mentioned vehicles that had been used by the abductors were seen unrestrictedly entering the premises of the commander ’ office.

99 . Following the abduction, the applicants went to the commander ’ s office, where one of the officers confirmed that Mr Ayub Bakhayev had been arrested.

100 . The whereabouts of Mr Ayub Bakhayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first applicant.

101 . On 15 October 2001 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative.

102 . On 20 January 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 78009 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

103 . On 23 January 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status.

104 . On 25 December 2002 the first applicant was questioned. She gave the same account of events as that which she submitted to the Court.

105 . The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. Most of the responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Ayub Bakhayev was available, that no security operation had been carried out on 13 October 2001, and that there was no information concerning the VAZ-2106 vehicles.

106 . On 20 March 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 20 November 2002 and again suspended on 30 December 2002.

107 . On 28 April 2004 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Argun town prosecutor, asking that the investigation be resumed.

108 . On 7 May 2004 the Argun town prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed. The applicant was informed thereof.

109 . On 10 June 2004 the investigation was suspended again for failure to identify the perpetrators.

110 . In 2007 the Argun Town police station carried out operational search activities aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr Ayub Bakhayev. The police questioned the first applicant and several witnesses and sent requests for information to various authorities.

111 . On 3 March 2010 the first applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed and that she be informed of any progress in the investigation. In reply, the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended and that operational search activities were in progress with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of her son.

112 . On 21 May 2010 the applicant requested that she be granted access to the investigation file. No reply was made to this request.

113 . On 7 October 2010 the investigators ’ supervisor ordered that the investigation be resumed.

114 . On 17 October 2010 the first applicant was questioned again. She gave a detailed account of the circumstances of the abduction of her son that was similar to that which she submitted to the Court.

115 . On 19 October 2010 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the DNA taken from the first applicant ’ s blood.

116 . From 8 until 10 November 2010 the investigators questioned several witnesses, including the applicants ’ neighbours.

117 . On 15 November 2010 the investigation was suspended and subsequently resumed on 24 June 2011 after the investigators ’ superior pointed out several defects in the investigation . The investigators sent several requests for information to State authorities concerning the two above-mentioned VAZ-2106 vehicles and to this end questioned three witnesses about those vehicles; their statements did not provide any pertinent information.

118 . On 24 July 2011 the investigation was suspended again. On 5 October 2011 it was resumed; the first applicant was informed thereof. On the same day she was granted “civil claimant” status in the criminal case.

119 . On 6 October 2011 the investigation was suspended.

120 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

121 . On 23 September 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps. On 13 October 2010 the court terminated the proc eedings, having found that on 7 October 2010 the investigation had already been resumed. On 17 November 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

122 . The first applicant was the mother of Mr Said-Emin (also spelled as Sayd ‑ Emi and Sayd-Emin) Ocherkhadzhiyev, who was born in 1967. She died on 2 April 2014. The second applicant, Mr Adam Ocherkhadzhiyev, is the brother of Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev.

123 . In January 2000 the Russian federal forces conducted an extensive military operation against members of illegal armed groups in Grozny. The town was subjected to shelling and sweeping-up operations. By the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city, including the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny, were under the Russian forces ’ control (see Umayeva v. Russia , no. 1200/03, § 79, 4 December 2008, and Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia , nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 16 and 41, 24 February 2005).

124 . On 19 January 2000 Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev left his home in the settlement ( поселок ) of Katayama in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny, accompanied by the second applicant. They went to the settlement of Michurina in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny to visit a relative. A neighbour, Mr S.Kh., joined them. On their way there they came across an armoured personnel carrier (APC) carrying Russian servicemen. The servicemen wore military uniforms, spoke unaccented Russian and were of Slavic appearance. They opened fire and wounded Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev. Meanwhile, the second applicant and Mr S.Kh. managed to hide behind a building and escaped the shooting. The servicemen picked the wounded Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev off the ground, put him into the APC and drove off to an unknown destination.

125 . The whereabouts of Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev remain unknown.

126 . As soon as the shelling in Grozny was over, the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

127 . On 19 June 2001 the Grozny town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 17073 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

128 . On 27 July 2001 the first applicant was granted victim status.

129 . The investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. In particular, it was suspended on 19 August 2001 for failure to identify the perpetrators; the applicants were not duly informed of this decision. The investigation was resumed on 24 No vember 2005 and suspended on 24 January 2006, resumed again on 18 J anuary 2010 and suspended on 28 February 2010, then resumed on 8 November 2010 and suspended again on 8 December 2010.

130 . On 10 May 2011 the first applicant lodged a request with the investigating authority for the resumption of the investigation into the disappearance of her son. She also asked the investigators to question the second applicant and Mr S.Kh.

131 . On 11 May 2011 the investigation was resumed.

132 . On 12 May 2011 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who gave the same account of events as that which he submitted to the Court. In addition, he stated that he had not given testimony earlier because he was afraid of coming to the investigating authorities as a witness to the above-mentioned events.

133 . On 14 May 2011 the investigators questioned Mr S.Kh., whose statement was very similar to that of the second applicant.

134 . In some of their replies to requests for information lodged by the applicants regarding Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev, the investigators indicated that he had disappeared during a counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic.

135 . On 16 May 2011 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 19 October 2011 and suspended on 20 O ctober 2011, then resumed on 18 April 2012 and suspended on 8 May 2012.

136 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

137 . On 13 January 2010 and 12 August 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny challenging the investigators ’ decisions to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic steps. On 7 April 2010 and 22 November 2010 the court rejected that complaint, having found that the decisions to suspend the proceedings had already been annulled and the investigation resumed. On 22 December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision of 22 November 2010.

138 . The first applicant is the mother of Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, who was born in 1980. The second and the third applicants are his brother and sister.

139 . On 5 April 2003 Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, the second applicant and a group of about five or six residents of different neighbouring villages went into the mountains nearby the settlement of Ulus-Kert in the Shatoy district of Chechnya to pick wild garlic ( allium ursinum ). Having finished picking in the evening on the same date, they headed down from the mountains in the direction of the road, where a vehicle was waiting to take them home. Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev walked ahead of the group. Somewhere on the path to the road a group of about ten-fifteen military servicemen stopped Mr Mazhiyev. Having witnessed this, the second applicant and other fellow villagers tried to approach and help Mr Mazhiyev, but the servicemen threatened them with firearms and ordered them to lie down on the ground and stay still. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance; they were wearing paratroopers ’ military uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. All of them were armed and equipped with portable radio sets. After the servicemen had taken Mr Mazhiyev away, the second applicant and the others got up from the ground. They went down the mountain to their vehicle, hoping that Mr Mazhiyev would be waiting for them there, but they could not find him.

140 . The next day, the second applicant, together with other relatives, went to a military unit stationed in the village of Dachu ‑ Barzoy. One of the officers, who introduced himself as Valeriy, informed them that Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev had been detained by military servicemen; those servicemen had brought him to the 45th regiment, which was stationed in the village of Khattuni.

141 . The whereabouts of Mr Alikhan Mezhiyev remain unknown.

142 . According to the applicants, immediately after the above events they abstained from lodging any official complaints, fearing for their lives and the life of their missing relative. On 29 June 2003 they lodged a complaint with the authorities regarding the abduction, requesting that a criminal investigation be opened.

143 . On 29 July 2003 the Vedeno district prosecutors ’ office opened criminal case no. 24058 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

144 . On 29 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed thereof.

145 . On 14 and 28 April 2010 the first applicant requested information about progress in the proceedings. She also asked to be granted access to the investigation file.

146 . On 15 June 2010 the military prosecutor ’ s office of the United Group Alignment informed the first applicant that the investigation file had been lost and that measures were being taken to retrieve it.

147 . On 1 July 2010 the acting head of the Shali inter-district investigations department ordered that the criminal case file be retrieved.

148 . On 5 July 2010 the applicants were informed that the investigation had been resumed. It was subsequently suspended on 4 August 2010, then resumed on 9 June 2011, suspended on 11 July 2011, then resumed on 13 July 2011 and suspended again on 25 July 2011.

149 . On 20 July 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

150 . On 21 July 2010 the second applicant was questioned as a witness. He gave the same account of events as that which he submitted to the Court.

151 . On the same date, another brother of Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev was questioned as a witness. He had been told of the events of 5 April 2003 by the second applicant.

152 . On 22 July 2010 the investigators questioned the third applicant. She confirmed that on the day following the abduction of her brother her relatives had gone to the military unit stationed in Dachu ‑ Barzoy village. They had been told by the chief serviceman that Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev had been held in the village of Khattuni.

153 . The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities and to various hospitals. The responses stated that no information about Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev was available.

154 . On 2 August 2010 the investigators lodged a request with the head of the Vedenskiy District police station for a properly secured on-site examination to be organised of the area between the settlements of Ulus ‑ Kert and Selmintauzin. The military commander informed him in reply that such an examination was impossible because the officers of the FSB were carrying out special operations in that area.

155 . On 14 April 2011 the first applicant obtained the investigators ’ permission to study the case file.

156 . On 25 June 2011 the first applicant was questioned again.

157 . On 15 July 2011 the investigators questioned a police officer who had been working in the villages of Tevzana and Khatuni since 2001. He stated that in 2003 various units of the FSB, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence and the Main Intelligence Service of the Ministry of Defence ( 6- й отдел ГРУ ) in Grozny had been stationed on the outskirts of the village of Khattuni.

158 . On numerous occasions between 2003 and 2011 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that their complaints had been examined or forwarded to other authorities for examination and that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts.

159 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

160 . On 16 May 2011 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 14 June 2011 the court rejected that complaint, having found that several days earlier, on 9 June 2011, the investigators had resumed the proceedings. On 29 July 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the above decision on appeal.

161 . The first applicant was the mother of Ms Tumisha (also spelled as Tumishat) Sadykova, who was born in 1959. She died on 22 October 2014. The second applicant is the sister of Ms Tumisha Sadykova.

162 . At the material time, Ms Tumisha Sadykova worked at a car wash on Subbotnikov Street in Grozny. A regional department of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency was located across the street.

163 . At about 2 p.m. on 15 March 2006 Ms Tumisha Sadykova and her relative, Mr Kh.Kh., were at the car wash, when a group of about ten armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in VAZ ‑ 21099 and UAZ-469 vehicles without registration plates. The men forced Ms Tumisha Sadykova and Mr Kh.Kh. into the UAZ vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

164 . Mr Kh.Kh. was released later on the same date somewhere in Grozny (see below).

165 . At some point after the abduction, one of Ms Tumisha Sadykova ’ s colleagues (named Adam) and a relative of the applicants (named Aslanbek) – both of whom assisted the applicants in the search for Ms Tumisha Sadykova – obtained information concerning the possibility of her being released in exchange for money. The two men asked the applicants to give them money in the amount allegedly demanded of them in exchange for Mr Tumisha Sadykova ’ s release. According to the applicants, they paid the amount requested, but Ms Tumisha Sadykova was not released. As can be seen from the case file, the investigators were subsequently informed of those developments.

166 . The whereabouts of Ms Tumisha Sadykova have remained unknown ever since the day of her abduction.

167 . On 16 August 2006 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that an investigation be opened.

168 . On 30 September 2006 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 50176 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

169 . On the same date the first applicant was granted victim status.

170 . On 2 October 2006 the first applicant was questioned by the investigators.

171 . On 9 and 10 October 2006 the investigators questioned two eyewitnesses to the abduction, Mr L-A.Ch. and Mr R.Kh. Their statements about the events of 15 March 2006 were similar to the applicants ’ submissions to the Court. In addition, Mr R.Kh. stated that one of the armed men had asked him in Chechen where the entrance to the café was.

172 . On 14 October 2006 and 6 April 2010 the second applicant was questioned. She affirmed the account of the abduction given above.

173 . On 8 November 2006 the investigators questioned Mr A.S. (the father of Ms Tumisha Sadykova), who stated in particular that some time after the abduction, two men (a colleague of his daughter named Adam and a relative of his family) – both of whom had been engaged in the search for Ms Tumisha Sadykova – had asked him to hand over to them the amount of money allegedly demanded by way of a ransom for her release. He had paid the amount requested, but Ms Tumisha Sadykova had not been released.

174 . The investigators lodged several requests for information with the law-enforcement authorities; those authorities ’ responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Ms Tumisha Sadykova was available.

175 . On 30 November 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

176 . A number of operational search activities aimed at finding Ms Tumisha Sadykova were carried out by police officers in 2010. In particular, on 26 April 2010 they examined the crime scene at the car wash. Those steps yielded no tangible results.

177 . On 8 April 2009 a relative of the applicants requested the Chechen Parliament for assistance in the search for Ms Tumisha Sadykova. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request.

178 . On 31 March 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigation be resumed. On 16 June 2011 her request was granted and the investigation was resumed. It was suspended on 16 July 2011 and again resumed on 27 January 2012.

179 . On 10 February 2012 the investigators questioned the second applicant. She stated, in particular, that after the first Chechen war, from 1997 until 1999, her sister, Ms Tumisha Sadykova, had worked at the Ministry of Sharia National Security ( Министерство Шариатской Государственной безопасности ) during the period when Aslan Maskhadov had been President of Chechnya.

180 . On 24 February 2012 the investigation was suspended. On 31 May 2012 that decision was annulled by the Leninsky district prosecutor ’ s office , which pointed out several defects in the investigation. Consequently, on 4 June 2012 the investigation was resumed.

181 . On 7 June 2012 Mr Kh.M. was questioned. He stated that in March 2006 he met Ms Tumisha Sadykova at the car wash. During their conversation, an UAZ-469 vehicle had arrived; four armed man in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas had got out of the vehicle. They had demanded in Russian and in Chechen that Mr Kh.M. show them his identity documents. When he had attempted to present his official identification issued by the law-enforcement agency, where he worked, the men had grabbed him and forced him into his VAZ ‑ 21140 car. He had not seen what had happened to Ms Tumisha Sadykova. The men had told him that they would take him to the settlement of Khankala. On their way there they had checked his service identity document over the radio. Having verified that he did in fact work at the law-enforcement agency, the men had stopped the car. An UAZ-469 vehicle had arrived; the men had got out of Mr Kh.M. ’ s car and told him to stay in his car without moving for about fifteen minutes. Then they had got into the UAZ-469 vehicle and had left. Mr Kh.M. had informed the relatives of Ms Tumisha Sadykova of the circumstances of her abduction.

182 . On 8 June 2012 the investigators questioned another witness, Mr B.M., who had seen several armed men forcing Ms Tumisha Sadykova into the UAZ-469 vehicle and Mr Kh.M. into the VAZ-21140 car. The men had spoken Russian and Chechen.

183 . On 4 July 2012 the investigation was suspended. On 8 April 2014 that suspension was overruled by the Leninsky district prosecutor ’ s office . Consequently, on 14 April 2014 the investigation was resumed.

184 . The investigator sent several requests for information to various medical institutions. The responses contained statements to the effect that Ms Tumisha Sadykova had not sought medical treatment in those institutions.

185 . On 14 May 2014 the investigation was suspended.

186 . It appears that the investigation is still pending.

187 . On 20 December 2011 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny challenging the investigators ’ decision of 16 July 2011 to suspend the proceedings. On 27 January 2012 her complaint was rejected, as the proceedings had already been resumed. On 29 February 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

188 . For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice and for international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).

THE LAW

189 . Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that the applications should be joined, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rule of Court.

190 . The Court notes that the applicant in Ibayeva v. Russia (application no. 58501/09) died on 24 August 2011. Her daughter, Ms Larisa Ibayeva, who was born in 1976 and who is also the daughter of the disappeared Mr Ibragim Idrisov, expressed her wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her stead (see paragraph 23 above). The Government contended that Ms Larisa Ibayeva had no standing in the proceedings before the Court owing to her lack of active participation in the domestic investigation.

191 . The Court normally permits the next of kin to pursue an application, provided that they have a legitimate interest, in the event that the original applicant dies after lodging the application with the Court (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no.10511/10, § 79, 26 April 2016, and Maylenskiy v. Russia , no. 12646/15, § 27, 4 October 2016; for cases concerning abductions in Chechnya see Sultygov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42575/0 7 and 11 others, §§ 381-86). Having regard to the subject matter of the application and all the information in its possession, the Court considers that the daughter of the applicant, Ms Larisa Ibayeva, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application and that she thus has the requisite locus standi under Article 34 of the Convention.

192 . The Government submitted that, contrary to the requirements of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, in Mamayeva v. Russia (application no. 67344/09) the applicant had not presented a concise statement of facts and a statement confirming her compliance with the admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They submitted that this application lacked a statement of facts and reasoning sufficient to allow the Government to express its position on the issues raised in it.

193 . The Court has already examined and dismissed similar objections lodged by the respondent Government (see, for instance, Toptanış v. Turkey , no. 61170/09 , § 27, 30 August 2016, and the cases cited therein). It reiterates that alleged non-compliance with Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not constitute part of the admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35 of the Convention. The Government ’ s arguments on this point should therefore be rejected.

194 . The Government submitted that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abduction of their relatives and more than six months after the date on which they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the pending investigations. They submitted that the applicants had remained passive and had not been interested in finding their missing relatives. The applicants had therefore failed to comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging their respective complaints with the Court.

195 . The applicants in all the applications submitted that they had complied with the six-month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time to initiate a search for their missing relatives and to assist the authorities in the proceedings. They denied that there had been excessive or unexplained delays in lodging their applications with the Court, which had been lodged as soon as they had considered the respective domestic investigation to have proved to be ineffective.

196 . The applicants furthermore submitted that they had complained to the authorities shortly after all of the incidents in question and had hoped that the criminal investigation initiated thereafter would produce results. In respect of each case, throughout the proceedings they had maintained regular contact with the authorities and had actively cooperated with the respective investigation. The applicants furthermore maintained that the armed conflict in Chechnya had led them to believe that investigative delays were inevitable and that it was only with the passage of time and the lack of information from the domestic authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the respective investigations. They had lodged their applications with the Court after realising that the domestic investigations had proved to be ineffective. Some applicants also referred to their “legal illiteracy” and lack of financial means with which to retain a lawyer ( Mamayeva (no. 67344/09), Bashayeva (no. 12926/10), Davletbayeva and Others (no. 22170/11) and Mazhiyeva and Others (no. 75319/11)). Furthermore, several applicants also pointed out that they had had to leave Chechnya at various points of time owing to the armed conflict; they had therefore learned of some decisions suspending the respective investigation only several years after those decisions been taken ( Ibayeva (no. 58501/09), Bashayeva (no. 12926/10) and Davletbayeva and Others (no. 22170/11)).

197 . A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the six-month rule in cases involving violations of Article 2 of the Convention allegedly perpetrated by military servicemen may be found in Sultygov and Others (cited above, § 369-74) and Dudayeva v. Russia , no. 67437/09 , § 71, 8 December 2015.

198 . Turning to the circumstances of the applications at hand, the Court notes that in nine of the cases at hand the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court within a period ranging from less than four years to up to ten years after the respective incidents, and that in each case the authorities became aware of the abductions without there being any undue delays. In respect of each of the cases, investigations were formally pending at the time at which the applications were lodged with the Court. The criminal proceedings in respect of all the cases were suspended and resumed on several occasions throughout the periods concerned. The applicants maintained reasonable contact with the authorities, cooperated with each investigation, and, where appropriate, took steps to inform themselves of the progress of the proceedings and to speed them up, in the hope of securing a more effective outcome (see paragraphs 20 , 43 , 92 - 93 , 158 , 177 - 178 above). Given the time that passed between each of the abductions and the initiation of the relevant criminal proceedings – as well as the active stance taken by the applicants in respect of the proceedings – the Court is satisfied that the applicants lodged their applications within a reasonable amount of time (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC] , nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009).

199 . As for the application Ocherkhadzhiyevy (no. 31184/11), which was lodged eleven years and three months after the abduction in question, the Court notes that the criminal case was opened almost a year and a half after the events in question. It has previously found that the law-enforcement bodies were not functioning properly in Chechnya at the time in question (see Isayeva v. Russia , no. 57950/00, § 158, 24 February 2005); this state of affairs precluded the applicants from complaining promptly about the abduction of their respective relatives. Furthermore, there were two significant lulls in the criminal proceedings, each comprising four years; however, the applicants were not duly informed of the 2001 decision to suspend the investigation that signalled the first lull in the investigation (see paragraph 129 above); the proceedings were then resumed twice after the first applicant lodged complaints with the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny (see paragraph 137 above). 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 investigation. However, taking into account the authorities ’ failure to provide the applicants with information concerning the investigation (notably the first decision to suspend it) and the fact that the investigations were complex and concerned very serious allegations, 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 delay in the opening of the criminal case, or the lulls in the proceedings, cannot therefore be interpreted as constituting a failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the six ‑ month requirement (see Sagayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 22698/09 and 31189/11 , §§ 58-61, 8 December 2015, and Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia , no. 40001/08, § 67, 4 October 2016 ).

200 . In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit.

201 . In respect of the applications Khamkhoyeva and Others (no. 6636/09), Ibayeva (no. 58501/09), Mamayeva (no. 67344/09), Bashayeva (no. 12926/10), Davletbayeva and Others (no. 22170/11) and Obrugovy (no. 22311/11) the Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies. In their view, it had been open to the applicants to appeal against the investigators ’ decisions before the domestic courts or to challenge the alleged inactivity of the investigating authorities, but they had failed to do so.

202 . The applicants, referring to the Court ’ s case-law, submitted that lodging complaints against the investigators would not have remedied the shortcomings of the investigations. They furthermore argued that the criminal investigations had proved to be ineffective.

203 . The Court has previously concluded that the ineffective investigation of disappearances that occurred in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006 constituted a systemic problem and that criminal investigations did not constitute an effective remedy in this respect (see Aslakhanova and Others , cited above, § 217). In such circumstances, and noting the absence over the years of any tangible progress in the criminal investigations into the abductions of the applicants ’ relatives, the Court concludes that this objection must be dismissed since the remedy cited by the Government is not effective in the circumstances (see, for similar reasoning, Khachukayevy v. Russia , no. 34576/08 , § 60, 9 February 2016).

204 . The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application, but submitted that there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions of the applicants ’ relatives.

205 . 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 cited evidence contained in their submissions and documents from the criminal investigation files submitted by the Government. They also stated that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by military servicemen, and that the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government. Given (i) the fact that they had not had any news of their relatives for a long time and (ii) the life-threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in Chechnya at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead.

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

207 . Turning to the circumstances of the applications before it, and taking into account of all the material in its possession (including the documents from the criminal investigation files provided by the Government), the Court finds that the applicants have made prima facie cases that their relatives were abducted by State agents in the circumstances described above.

208 . In the application Khamkhoyeva and Others (no. 6636/09), the Court notes that Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev was abducted together with Mr Ruslan Yandiyev (see paragraph 11 above). In view of its findings in the case of Bekova (cited above) and given the similar circumstances surrounding the abductions of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev and Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, the Court considers that the latter was also taken into custody by State agents on 29 September 2005 (see Sultygov and Others , cited above, §§ 400-02).

209 . As to the application Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), the Court notes that Mr Ibragim Idrisov was arrested on 27 January 2002 by servicemen from the VOVD and placed in a temporary detention ward at the VOVD police station. He was allegedly released on 2 February 2002, but no one has seen him since (see paragraphs 24 - 26 and 30 above).

210 . Turning to the application Bashayeva (no. 12926/10) the Court notes that the applicant ’ s allegation that her relative was abducted by State agents, in the absence of any eyewitness accounts, is confirmed by the findings of the Grozny District Court, which established that Mr Rizvan Bashayev had disappeared on 20 December 2000 after his arrest at the roadblock in the village of Komsomolskoye (see paragraph 51 above). The Court has previously found that at the material time the area was under the full control of the Russian federal forces, whose checkpoints were located on roads leading to and from the village of Komsomolskoye (see Bantayeva and Others v. Russia , no. 20727/04, § 10, 12 February 2009).

211 . In the application Obrugovy (no. 22311/11) it is not disputed by the parties that Mr Sharudi Obrugov was arrested on 14 August 2002 by military servicemen and taken to the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala (see paragraph 76 above).

212 . As to the applications Mamayeva (no. 67344/09), Davletbayeva and Others (no. 22170/11) and Bakhayeva and Others (no. 22946/11), the Court observes that the applicants ’ relatives were abducted from various public places by armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who arrived in UAZ military vehicles without registration plates or in VAZ-2106 vehicles. Most of the armed men were of Slavic appearance, spoke unaccented Russian and perpetrated the abductions openly, without any fear of attracting the authorities ’ attention (see paragraphs 36 , 41 , 62 and 97 above). Furthermore, while VAZ-2106 vehicles cannot be considered as strictly military, the Court notes that the abductors of Mr Ayub Bakhayev were seen unrestrictedly entering the Argun district military commander ’ s office (see paragraph 98 above). The fact that he had been arrested by servicemen was subsequently confirmed by one of the officers from that office (see paragraph 99 above).

213 . Turning to the application Ocherkhadzhiyevy (no. 31184/11), the Court observes that the abduction of Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev took place in Grozny in January 2000 – a time when the Russian federal forces were conducting an extensive military operation against members of illegal armed groups (see paragraph 123 and 134 above). The Court also notes the involvement of a special military vehicle – namely, an APC, in his abduction (see paragraph 124 above).

214 . The Court furthermore notes that in the applications Mazhiyeva and Others (no. 75319/11) and Sadykovy (no. 34887/12) the alleged abductors were equipped with portable radio sets (see paragraphs 139 and 181 above). Moreover, in Sadykovy they verified over the radio the identity of Mr Kh.M., who was a relative of the disappeared Ms Tumisha Sadykova and who worked at the law-enforcement agency. The possibility of checking the service identity of Mr Kh.M. over a special communications channel was at that time available only to the military or security personnel (see Aslakhanova and Others , cited above, § 99).

215 . Having regard to the numerous previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia that have come before it, the Court has found that in the particular context of the conflict in Chechnya, when a person is detained by unidentified State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of that detention, this may be regarded as life ‑ threatening (see, among many authorities, Aslakhanova and Others , cited above, § 101).

216 . Lastly, the Court observes that 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 (see, among many authorities, AvÅŸar v. Turkey , no. 25657/94, § 392, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts)).

217 . In summary, the facts of all the applications contain sufficient evidence to enable the Court to find that the applicants ’ relatives were taken into custody by State agents during security operations and remained under the State ’ s exclusive control. Given the lack of any reliable news about them since their detention – and the life-threatening nature of that detention – the Court finds that Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, Mr Ibragim Idrisov, Mr Magomed Dadulagov, Mr Rizvan Bashayev, Mr Khizir Galtakov, Mr Sharudi Obrugov, Mr Ayub Bakhayev, Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev, Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, and Ms Tumisha Sadykova may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention.

218 . 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 effective investigations into the matter. Article 2 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.

2. 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.”

219 . The Government submitted that no evidence had been obtained in the course of domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants ’ relatives had been held under State control or that they had been killed. They furthermore stated that the mere fact that the investigations had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that they had been ineffective.

220 . The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and deprived of their lives, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. They furthermore argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set out in the Convention.

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

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

222 . The Court has already found that the applicants ’ relatives may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State agents (see paragraph 217 above). In the absence of any form of justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that the deaths of the applicants ’ relatives can be attributed to the State. It concludes that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, Mr Ibragim Idrisov, Mr Magomed Dadulagov, Mr Rizvan Bashayev, Mr Khizir Galtakov, Mr Sharudi Obrugov, Mr Ayub Bakhayev, Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev, Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, and Ms Tumisha Sadykova.

(b) Alleged inadequacy of the investigations into the abductions

223 . The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances that have occurred (particularly in Chechnya between 1999 and 2006) and that such a situation constitutes a systemic problem under the Convention (see paragraph 203 above ). In the cases at hand, as in many previous similar cases examined by the Court, the respective 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.

224 . The Court observes 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). In each of the cases there have been several decisions to suspend the respective investigation, followed by periods of inactivity, which have further diminished the prospects of solving the crimes. No meaningful steps have been taken to identify and question servicemen who could have witnessed, made a record of or participated in the operations.

225 . In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances of the disappearance and deaths of Mr Ilez Kha mkhoyev, Mr Ibragim Idrisov, Mr Magomed Dadulagov, Mr Rizvan Bashayev, Mr Khizir Galtakov, Mr Sharudi Obrugov, Mr Ayub Bakhayev, M r Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev, Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, and Ms Tumisha Sadykova. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

226 . The applicants in all the applications except Ibayeva (no. 58501/09), Mamayeva (no. 67344/09) and Bashayeva (no. 12926/10) complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives.

227 . All of the applicants, with the exception of those in Mamayeva (no. 67344/09) and Bashayeva (no. 12926/10), complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives ’ detention.

228 . All of the applicants, except for the applicants in Ibayeva (no. 58501/09) and Bashayeva (no. 12926/10), also alleged that there were no domestic remedies regarding the alleged violations in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.

229 . In addition, the applicants in Davletbayeva and Others (no. 22170/11), Obrugovy (no. 22311/11), Bakhayeva and Others (no. 22946/11), Ocherkhadzhiyevy v (no. 31184/11), Mazhiyeva and Others (no. 75319/11) and Sadykovy (no. 34887/12) complained of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant, as follows:

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;

...

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.”

230 . The Government contested the applicants ’ claims, arguing in particular that the applicants ’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required for it to f all within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. They also argued that domestic legislation afforded the applicants with effective remedies in respect of their complaints. Furthermore, in Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 6636/09) the Government su bmitted that the children of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev could not claim to be the victims of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention. There were no special factors such as those cited in, for example, Luluyev and Others v. Russia (no. 69480/01, § 111, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIII (extracts)) justifying the victim status of the third and fourth applicants in this case.

231 . The applicants reiterated their complaints.

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

(a) Alleged violation of the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment

233 . 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 lies not so much in the fact of the “disappearance” of the family member, but rather in 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 of a missing person ’ s death has been preceded by a sufficiently long period during which 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 , cited above, § 115).

234 . 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 missing persons. It finds that the applicants, who are close relatives of the abducted persons, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish they have suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.

235 . The Court notes that Mr Magomed Khamkhoyev and Mr Islam Khamkhoyev, the third and the fourth applicants in Khamkhoyeva and Others (application no. 6636/09), were born in 2001 and 2005 respectively – that is to say before their fathers ’ disappearance. Although the third applicant was only four years old and the fourth applicant was only several months old at the time of the events, they belonged to the immediate family of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev. The Court therefore considers that they have suffered, and continue to suffer, such distress and anguish as a result of their father ’ s disappearance that it amounts to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (compare with Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 3340/08 and 24689/10, § 103, 22 November 2016, and the cases cited therein). The Court therefore finds a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants except for Ms Larisa Ibayeva (application no. 58501/09), Ms Ayna Mamayeva (application no. 67344/09) and Ms Ayna Bashayeva (application no. 12926/10).

(b) Alleged violation of the right to liberty and security

236 . The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention constitutes a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly serious violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey , no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others , cited above, § 122).

237 . Since it has been established that the applicant ’ s relatives were detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgment of such detention (see paragraph 217 above), this constitutes a particularly serious violation of the right to liberty and security of person enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention. The Court accordingly finds a violation of this provision in respect of the applicants ’ relatives (on account of their unlawful detention) in all the applications except Mamayeva (no. 67344/09) and Bashayeva (no. 12926/10).

(c) Alleged violation of the right to an effective remedy

238 . The Court reiterates its findings regarding the general ineffectiveness of criminal investigations in cases such as those under examination. In the absence of any results of a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice. The Court thus finds that the applicants in all the applications, except Mamayeva (no. 67344/09) and Bashayeva (no. 12926/10), did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Davletbayeva and Others (no. 22170/11), Obrugovy (no. 22311/11), Bakhayeva and Others (no. 22946/11), Ocherkhadzhiyevy (no. 31184/11), Mazhiyeva and Others (no. 75319/11) and Sadykovy (no. 34887/12) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

239 . The Court furthermore notes that according to its established case ‑ law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements. In view of its finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (see paragraph 237 above), the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case (see Bantayeva and Others , cited above, § 121, and Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia , no. 40166/07 , § 84, 2 6 March 2015).

240 . 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.”

241 . The applicants in all the applications except for Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), Bashayeva (no. 12926/10) and Davletbayeva and Others (no. 22170/11) claimed compensation for the loss of financial support from their families ’ respective breadwinners.

242 . The applicants in Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 6636/09) made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuary Tables using domestic subsistence levels and the applicable inflation rates. All the other applicants based their calculations on the amount of the minimum wage in Russia and its expected growth in the future.

243 . The Government left the issue to the Court ’ s discretion.

244 . The amounts claimed by the applicants under that head are indicated in the appended table.

245 . The Government left the issue to the Court ’ s discretion.

246 . The amounts claimed by all applicants except Ibayeva (application no. 58501/09) are indicated in the appended table. They asked that the respective amounts awarded be paid into the bank accounts of their representatives.

247 . The Government left the issue to the Court ’ s discretion.

248 . 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 furthermore finds that damages in respect of loss of earnings may be claimed by close relatives of the disappeared persons, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva , cited above, § 213).

249 . Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage that cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of violations and may accordingly make a financial award.

250 . As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish firstly whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants ’ representatives were actually incurred and, secondly, 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).

251 . Having regard to its conclusions, the principles enumerated above and the parties ’ submissions, as well as the fact that legal aid of EUR 850 was granted to the applicants in applications nos. 58501/09 and 12926/10, the Court awards the applicants the amounts set out in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them in respect of those amounts. The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid into the representatives ’ bank accounts, as indicated by the applicants.

252 . 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,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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 awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the bank accounts of the applicants ’ representatives, 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 28 May 2019 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

             Stephen Phillips Branko Lubarda Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Kinship with the abducted person(s)

Abducted person(s)

Represented by

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

1.

6636/09

23/01/2009

1) Ms Zarema KHAMKHOYEVA

01/09/1970

Alkun

Wife

2) Ms Khedi MUZHIKHOYEVA

31/08/1969

Nazran

Sister

3) Mr Magomed KHAMKHOYEV

26/12/2001

Alkun

Son

4) Mr Islam KHAMKHOYEV

08/02/2005

Alkun

Son

Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev

Disappeared on 29/09/2005

SRJI/ ASTREYA

Claimed by the applicants

RUB 1,079,592 (EUR 14,039) to the first applicant

RUB 494,852 (EUR 6,435) to the third applicant

RUB 579,628 (EUR 7,537) to the fourth applicant

In the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 3,234

Awarded by the Court

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to the third applicant

EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the fourth applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

2.

58501/09

07/10/2009

Ms Minga IBAYEVA

24/07/1953

Strasbourg

Wife

Passed away, Ms Larisa Ibayeva (also spelled as Larissa Ibaeva), born on 09/09/1976, pursues the application in her stead.

Mr Ibragim Idrisov

Disappeared on 27/01/2002

Mr Christophe NOUZHA

(the applicant was granted legal aid)

Claimed by the applicant

-

EUR 80,000

-

Awarded by the Court

-

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to Ms Larisa Ibayeva

-

3.

67344/09

02/12/2009

Ms Ayna MAMAYEVA

14/02/1955

Noviye Atagi

Wife

Mr Magomed Dadulagov

Disappeared on

09/12/2003

Mr Tagir SHAMSUDI-NOV

Claimed by the applicant

EUR 15,000

EUR 80,000

EUR 1,566

Awarded by the Court

EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros)

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros)

EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros)

4.

12926/10

23/02/2010

Ms Ayna BASHAYEVA

(also spelled as Bachaeva)

09/10/1967

Valence

Wife

Mr Rizvan Bashayev

Disappeared on 20/12/2000

Ms Oksana PREOBRAZHENSKAYA (the applicant was granted legal aid)

Claimed by the applicant

-

EUR 150,000

EUR 3,750

Awarded by the Court

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros)

EUR 1,150 (one thousand one hundred and fifty euros)

5.

22170/11

25/03/2011

1) Ms Zina DAVLETBAYEVA (also spelled as Davletbaeva)

09/09/1975

Strasbourg

Wife

2) Mr Khabibula GALTAKOV

19/04/1993

Strasbourg

Son

3) Mr Abdul-Khakim GALTAKOV

07/11/2003

Strasbourg

Son

4) Mr Magomed GALTAKOV

04/01/1998

Strasbourg

Son

5) Ms Isa GALTAKOVA

Born in 1931

Voznesenskaya

Mother

Passed away

Mr Khizir Galtakov

Disappeared on 17/05/2005

Ms Oksana PREOBRA-ZHENSKAYA

Claimed by the applicants

-

EUR 60,000 to the first, second, third and fourth applicants jointly

EUR 5,250

Awarded by the Court

-

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the first, second, third and fourth applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

6.

22311/11

15/03/2011

1) Mr Isa OBRUGOV

01/01/1950

Argun

Father

2) Ms Shamset OBRUGOVA

Born in 1952

Argun

Mother

3) Mr Raybek OBRUGOV

18/01/1988

Argun

Brother

Passed away

Mr Sharudi Obrugov

Disappeared on 14/08/2002

MATERI CHECHNI

Claimed by the applicants

EUR 17,574

to the first and second applicants jointly

EUR 70,000 to the first and second applicants jointly

EUR 9,264

Awarded by the Court

EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros) to the first and second applicants jointly

EUR 70,000 (seventy thousand euros) to the first and second applicants jointly

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

7.

22946/11

28/02/2011

1) Baret BAKHAYEVA

01/04/1953

Argun

Mother

2) Umalat BAKHAYEV

01/12/1982

Argun

Brother

3) Berlant MUNAYEVA

12/04/1975

Argun

Sister

Mr Ayub Bakhayev

Disappeared on 13/10/2001

MATERI CHECHNI

Claimed by the applicants

EUR 36,200 to the first applicant

EUR 70,000 to the applicants jointly

EUR 6,320

Awarded by the Court

EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 70,000 (seventy thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

8.

31184/11

06/05/2011

1) Ms Mariya OCHERKHADZHIYEVA

15/01/1938

Grozny

Mother

Passed away

2) Mr Adam OCHERKHADZHIYEV

18/09/1972

Grozny

Brother

Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev

Disappeared on 19/01/2000

MATERI CHECHNI

Claimed by the applicant

EUR 11,342 to the second applicant

EUR 70,000 to the second applicant

EUR 8,920

Awarded by the Court

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 70,000 (seventy thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

9.

75319/11

15/11/2011

1) Ms Maryam MAZHIYEVA

15/11/1948

Dachu-Barzoy

Mother

2) Mr Akhmed MAZHIYEV

06/03/1974

Dachu-Barzoy

Brother

3) Ms Larisa ASIYEVA

02/08/1967

Chiri-Yurt

Sister

Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev

Disappeared on 05/04/2003

MATERI CHECHNI

Claimed by the applicants

EUR 17,714 to the first applicant

EUR 10,122 to the second and third applicants jointly

EUR 70,000 to the applicants jointly

EUR 10,200

Awarded by the Court

EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to the second and third applicants jointly

EUR 70,000 (seventy thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

10.

34887/12

14/05/2012

1) Ms Khava SADYKOVA

Born in 1939

Pobedinskoye

Mother

Passed away

2) Ms Raisa SADYKOVA

14/12/1971

Pobedinskoye

Sister

Ms Tumisha Sadykova

Disappeared on 15/03/2006

MATERI CHECHNI

Claimed by the applicant

EUR 16,844 to the second applicant

EUR 70,000 to the second applicant

EUR 8,879

Awarded by the Court

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 70,000 (seventy thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)