6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the town of Zarechniy of the Sverdlovsk Region. In 1984 she married Mr Igor Gavrikov and a year later gave birth to their first son. 7.  On 25 May 1995 the applicant formally divorced Mr Gavrikov. She explained that the divorce had been motivated by the desire to improve their housing conditions. As a divorced person she had become eligible for a separate flat which she received. But shortly thereafter they had exchanged the two flats for a larger one and moved in together. In 1996 their second son was born. 8.  In the night from 3 to 4 July 2001 Mr Gavrikov died in an aeroplane crash. The plane was owned and operated by the public company “VladivostokAvia” (“the air carrier”). 9.  The air carrier offered to pay compensation. However, the applicant was not satisfied with the amount and sued the air carrier in tort, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and payment of the insurance cover. She lodged the action on behalf of herself and her two sons. 10.  On 13 March 2002 the Beloyarskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region granted the claims in part. It held that the claim for pecuniary damage was covered through the plaintiffs' entitlement to a lump-sum compensation and monthly payments from the local social security office. As to the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage, the District Court ruled as follows:
“The plaintiff's claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage are substantiated by virtue of Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Through the air carrier's fault the plaintiff lost her beloved person with whom she had been living for a long time and to whom she gave two children. It is natural that the news of a sudden death of their husband and father came as a strong nervous shock to her and her children. The plaintiff also suffered mental anguish during identification of her husband. The depressed mental state of the plaintiff following [her partner's] death is confirmed by medical certificates. At present she is still in a state of moral anguish because she has two underage children who need upbringing and education. It would have been easier for her to [bring them up] together with her husband. The defendant violated the plaintiff's right to have a full family with her husband and the children's right to have the father...” 11.  The court ordered the air carrier to pay 20,000 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to the applicant and RUR 200,000 to her sons in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 12.  On 14 June 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 March 2002 in the part concerning the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage:
“As it has been established by the [first-instance] court and supported by the materials in the case-file, in 1995 the plaintiff divorced Mr Igor Gavrikov. By law she has not been a relative of Mr Gavrikov who died in the crash. Therefore, the provisions on compensation for non-pecuniary damage in connection with the loss of a relative may not be applied to [the applicant] and her mental trauma sustained as a result of her former husband's death is of no legal significance. On this ground [the court]... makes a new decision, according to which [the applicant's] claim for non-pecuniary damage must be dismissed”. 13.  On 5 August 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined an application for supervisory review lodged by the applicant and referred it for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 14.  On 5 October 2005 the Presidium of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court found the application meritorious. It pointed out that the law does not make the right to receive compensation for non-pecuniary damage conditional on the existence of a marital relationship. Family ties may arise not only from marriage or cognation, and the death of a breadwinner may cause damage not only to the spouse or blood relatives, but also to other family members. The Presidium further acknowledged that the District Court's findings that the applicant and her late partner had lived together and that his death had caused her moral anxiety and neurosis, had not been called into question. In these circumstances, the Regional Court's decision refusing compensation to the applicant, was not lawful. On that ground the Presidium quashed the Regional Court's judgment in the part concerning compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the first applicant and remitted this part of the claim for a new examination. 15.  On 6 December 2005 the Zarechnyi District Court found that the applicant had incurred non-pecuniary damage because of the death of her partner. It determined that her non-pecuniary rights to a functional family and parental care for the children had been violated and she had suffered a mental trauma and depression. The District Court stressed that the law does not confine the possibility of receiving compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the persons in a registered marriage. Assessing the intensity of the applicant's suffering, the extent of the perpetrator's fault, and applying the principles of reasonableness and fairness, the District Court awarded her RUR 200,000 in respect of compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred through the death of her partner. 16.  On 14 March 2006 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment on appeal.