Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.10.2010 «Дело Константин Маркин (Konstantin Markin) против России» [англ.]

of the Convention reads as follows:
"1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution."
65. The Court reiterates that Article 46 of the Convention, as interpreted in the light of Article 1, imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to implement, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, appropriate general and/or individual measures to secure the right of the applicant which the Court found to be violated. Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], Nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002-VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, No. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008-...). This obligation has been consistently emphasised by the Committee of Ministers in the supervision of the execution of the Court's judgments (see, for example, ResDH (97) 336, IntResDH (99) 434, IntResDH (2001) 65 and ResDH (2006) 1). In theory it is not for the Court to determine what measures of redress may be appropriate for a respondent State to take in accordance with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention. However, the Court's concern is to facilitate the rapid and effective suppression of a shortcoming found in the national system of human-rights protection (see Driza v. Albania, No. 33771/02, § 125, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts)).
66. In the present case the Court found a violation under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. The violation of the applicant's rights originated in shortcomings in the Russian legislation, namely section 11 § 3 of the Military Service Act and the Regulations on military service, enacted by Presidential Decree No. 1237 on 16 September 1999, by virtue of which the entitlement to parental leave was limited to servicewomen as opposed to servicemen. As a consequence, an entire category of individuals - male military personnel - are discriminated against in the enjoyment of their right to respect for family and private life. The Court's finding that the legislation in question is not compatible with the Convention discloses a widespread problem in the legal framework concerning a substantial number of people.
67. It has been the Court's practice, when discovering a shortcoming in the national legal system, to identify its source in order to assist the Contracting States in finding the appropriate solution and the Committee of Ministers in supervising the execution of judgments (see, for example, Maria Violeta {Lazarescu} v. Romania, No. 10636/06, § 27, 23 February 2010; Driza, cited above, §§ 122 - 126, and {Urper} and Others v. Turkey, Nos. 14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07, 15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07 and 54637/07, §§ 51 and 52, 20 October 2009). Having regard to the problem disclosed in the present case, the Court is of the opinion that general measures at national level would be desirable to ensure effective protection against discrimination in accordance with the guarantees of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. In this connection, the Court would recommend that the respondent Government take measures, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, with a view to amending section 11 § 3 of the Military Service Act and the Regulations on military service, enacted by Presidential Decree No. 1237 on 16 September 1999, to take account of the principles enunciated in the present judgment with a view to putting an end to the discrimination against male military person

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16 ... 17