Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Тасатаевы (Tasatayevy) против России» [англ.]

ion.

VI. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention

106. The applicants complained that the proceedings brought by them against the investigators were unfair. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."
107. The Court finds that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is, in principle, inapplicable to the proceedings in question, as they clearly have not involved the determination of the applicants' civil rights or obligations or a criminal charge against them, within the meaning of the Convention (see Akhmadov and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 21586/02, 3 May 2007).
108. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 thereof.

VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

109. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of the aforementioned violations, 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

110. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had availed themselves of it. The Government further added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.
111. The applicants reiterated the complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

112. 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

113. The Court reiterates that in circumstances where, as here, a criminal investigation into the 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).
114. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
115. As regards the applicants' reference to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the Court considers that, in the circumstances, no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, § 119, 15 November 2007, and Aziyevy v. Russia, No. 77626/01, § 118, 20 March 2008).

VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

116. 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 o

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17