Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Хатуева (Khatuyeva) против России» [англ.]

r /> "2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
94. The Court notes that there is no evidence that the applicant properly raised her complaints alleging a breach of her right to respect for her home before the domestic authorities. But even assuming that in the circumstances of the present case no remedies were available, the events complained of took place on 2 August 2004, whereas the application was lodged on 28 March 2005. The Court thus concludes that this part of the application was lodged outside the six-month limit (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), No. 62566/00 et seq., 10 January 2002, and Musayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 74239/01, 1 June 2006).
95. It follows that this part of the application was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

96. The applicant complained that she had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of the violation of Article 2, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"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."

A. The parties' submissions

97. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.
98. The applicant reiterated the complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

99. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

100. The Court reiterates that in circumstances where, as here, a criminal investigation into a disappearance has been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed, including civil remedies suggested by the Government, has consequently been undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
101. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.

VIII. Alleged violations of Articles 34 and 38
of the Convention

102. The applicant submitted that she was subjected to threats in relation to her complaint to the Court, as a result of which she was forced to seek asylum abroad. She also argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 § 1 (a) of

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 ... 16