Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело Максимов (Maksimov) против России» [англ.]

be subjected to ill-treatment and to obtain full reparation for it.
12. However, we are also prepared to draw even more far-reaching inferences from the domestic courts' reluctance to provide grounds for their decision. Given the complete lack of reasoning behind the disproportionately low amount of compensation awarded to the applicant by the domestic courts, we strongly believe that the courts did not give due consideration to the applicant's claims and failed to act on the principle that the wrong should be adequately and effectively remedied. We are not convinced that the domestic courts in the present case, acting out of a genuine desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the effect which the instance of ill-treatment had had on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, No. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and to determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), No. 34368/02, 25 November 2004). Having regard to this finding and taking into account the fact that Article 13 gives direct expression to the States' obligation to protect human rights first and foremost within their own legal system, establishing an additional guarantee for an individual in order to ensure that he or she effectively enjoys those rights (see Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, No. 50963/99, § 132, 20 June 2002), we are therefore bound to conclude that the Russian authorities did not comply with their obligation to secure the applicant's right guaranteed by that Convention provision.
13. We would also like to address the argument pertaining to the unenforceability of the compensation award. In particular, the applicant submitted that Russian law did not allow him to foresee what the legal consequences might be should he bring an action against Mr N., a private tortfeasor, and be unable to obtain enforcement of the award. While accepting that he had had a choice of legal avenues to pursue in his attempt to obtain compensation for the ill-treatment suffered, the applicant stressed that there was no clear indication in Russian law as to what remedy could have provided him with a more tangible result or, if only an aggregate of remedies could have been effective in his case, what would have been the correct order in which to pursue them. In this respect the applicant's argument goes to the heart of the Convention principle that even if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see {Kudla}, cited above, § 152, and T.P. and K.M., cited above, § 107). It must therefore be thoroughly examined.
14. We observe that, quite apart from the criminal proceedings to which the applicant was a civil party, another avenue was available to him by which to obtain compensation for the damage resulting from his ill treatment. The Russian Civil Code provided him with the right to seek compensation for damage from the State, by either bringing a tort action in parallel with the criminal investigation against Mr N., although not within the criminal proceedings themselves, or by bringing such an action after the criminal proceedings were completed (see paragraph 52 of the judgment).
15. As regards the first avenue, the Court has already had an opportunity to rule on the effectiveness of such a remedy in Russia, holding that in the absence of any finding of guilt by the domestic courts in criminal proceedings, a claim for damages, as well as any other remedy available to an applicant, has limited chances of success and can be considered as theoretical and illusory and not capable of affording redress to the applicant (see Chember v. Russia, No. 7188/03, § 71, 3 July 2008). The Government did not provide the Court with any evidence to show that in the circumstance

> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 27