Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Гакиев и Гакиева (Gakiyev and Gakiyeva) против России» [англ.]

their subsequent death.
164. The Court notes that it is clear from the submissions of the applicants that they do not maintain that they were personally affected by the alleged violation of their son's right to participate in elections. The complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is brought solely on behalf of the late Idris Gakiyev. The Court shall now establish whether the applicants have standing to raise it.
165. The Court has held on many occasions that individuals who are the next of kin of persons who have disappeared while in the custody of State authorities in circumstances giving rise to issues under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention may apply as applicants in their own right (see, among many other authorities, {Tas} v. Turkey, No. 24396/94, 14 November 2000; Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, 18 June 2002; and Luluyev and Others, cited above). Moreover, it has followed this approach in the present case (see paragraphs 102 - 117 and 138 - 144 above). The Court emphasises nonetheless that this is a particular situation governed by the nature of the violations alleged and considerations regarding the effective implementation of fundamental provisions of the Convention system (see, mutatis mutandis, {Bic} and Others v. Turkey, No. 55955/00, § 22, 2 February 2006).
166. At the same time the Court has already established in its jurisprudence that relatives of a deceased person could not be considered as victims in respect of complaints concerning alleged interference with freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression or lack of effective of remedies (see Georgia Makri and others v. Greece (dec.), No. 5977/03, 24 March 2005, and Fairfield and Others, cited above).
167. The Court observes that the rights to vote and stand for election are implicit in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1; however, they are not absolute (see Py v. France, No. 66289/01, § 46, ECHR 2005-I (extracts). It reiterates that certain Convention rights - for instance, the rights bestowed in Article 8 - belong to the category of non-transferable rights (see {Thevenon} v. France (dec.), No. 2476/02, 28 February 2006) and considers that the right to vote, which is closely linked to one's person owing to its very nature, should be included in this category.
168. It is obvious that the applicants were not in any manner affected by Idris Gakiyev's inability to vote in the Russian State Duma elections. Moreover, they have failed to show any legitimate interest which could have entitled them to complain of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on behalf of their late son (see, by contrast, Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, No. 55929/00, § 29, 5 July 2005).
169. Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicants do not have the requisite standing under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 concerning Idris Gakiyev and that this part of the application must be rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.

IX. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

170. 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

171. The applicants claimed damages in respect of the lost wages of their son. They asserted that even though Idris Gakiyev had been unemployed at the time of his abduction, it was reasonable to suppose that he would have found a job and earned at least the official minimum wage and that he would have financially supported the applicants. The first a

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