Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 «Дело Хумайдов и Хумайдов (Khumaydov and Khumaydov) против России» [англ.]

as being incompatible ratione personae and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

V. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

138. 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

139. 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 or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.
140. The applicants reiterated the complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

141. The Court observes that the complaint made by the applicants under this Article has already been examined in the context of Article 2 of the Convention. Having regard to the findings of a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect (see paragraph 123 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see Shaipova and Others v. Russia, No. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008).

VI. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention

142. In their initial application form the applicants stated that they had been discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnic origin in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, which provides:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
143. In their observations on admissibility and merits dated 21 March 2008 the applicants stated that they no longer wished their complaint under Article 14 of the Convention to be examined.
144. The Court, having regard to Article 37 of the Convention, finds that the applicants do 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 Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
145. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

VII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

146. 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 only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Pecuniary damage

147. The second applicant claimed damages in respect of Khava Magomadova's loss of earnings arguing that prior to her disappearance his mother earned 60,000 Russian roubles (RUB) per an

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17