Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Магомадова (Magomadova) против России» [англ.]

pearance.
160. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Ibragim Uruskhanov was held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5. This constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.

VI. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention

161. The applicant complained that the proceedings brought by her against the investigators were unfair. She 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..."
162. 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 applicant's civil rights or obligations or a criminal charge against the applicant, within the meaning of the Convention (see Akhmadov and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 21586/02, 3 May 2007).
163. It follows that these complaints are 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 violations of Article 8 of the Convention

164. In her initial application form the applicant stated that the search conducted in her house on the night of Ibragim Uruskhanov's abduction constituted an unlawful and unjustified interference with right to respect for home, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
Article 8 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for... his home....
"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."
165. In her observations on admissibility and merits the applicant stated that she no longer wished her complaint under Articles 8 of the Convention to be examined.
166. The Court, having regard to Article 37 of the Convention, finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). The Court also finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the present complaints by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see, for example, Chojak v. Poland, No. 32220/96, Commission decision of 23 April 1998; Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 30024/96, 26 September 2000; and Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
167. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

VIII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

168. The applicant complained that she 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

169. The Government contended that the applica

> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 22 ... 23