Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 14.05.2009 «Дело Турлуева и Хамидова (Turluyeva and Khamidova) против России» [англ.]

not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

130. The Court considers that the applicants' complaint concerns in substance the alleged violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention. It reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. According to the Court's settled case-law, the effect of Article 13 of the Convention is to require the provision of a remedy at national level allowing the competent domestic authority both to deal with the substance of a relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their obligations under this provision. However, such a remedy is only required in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see Halford v. the United Kingdom, 25 June 1997, § 64, Reports 1997-III).
131. The Court emphasises that, given the fundamental importance of the right to protection of life, Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the deprivation of life, including effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, No. 38361/97, §§ 161 - 62, ECHR 2002-IV, and {Suheyla Aydin} v. Turkey, No. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005). The Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State's obligation under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
132. In view of the Court's above findings with regard to Article 2, this complaint is clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A No. 131). The applicants should accordingly have been able to avail themselves of effective and practical remedies capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and to an award of compensation for the purposes of Article 13.
133. It follows that in circumstances where, as here, the criminal investigation into the disappearance has been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may 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.
134. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.

IX. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

135. 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

136. The applicants claimed pecuniary damages in respect of Aslanbek Khamidov's lost wages. They submitted that, even though he was unemployed at the time of his arrest, it was reasonable to assume that he would have found a job and earned at least the statutory minimum wage until 2045. In total the first applicant claimed 28,000 euros (EUR) and the second applicant claimed EUR 1,990.
137. The Government regarded these claims as unfounded.
138. The Court reiterates that there must be a

> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 19