Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.04.2009 «Дело Газиева и другие (Gaziyeva and others) против России» [англ.]

/> 1. Admissibility

112. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

113. The Court reiterates 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 (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
114. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
115. As regards the applicants' reference to Article 3 of the Convention, the Court notes that it has found a violation of the above provision on account of the applicants' mental suffering as a result of the disappearance of their close relative, their inability to find out what had happened to him and the way the authorities handled their complaints. However, the Court has already found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities' conduct that led to the suffering endured by the applicants. The Court considers that, in the circumstances, no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention.
116. As regards the applicants' reference to Article 5 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements. In view of its above findings of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention resulting from the unacknowledged detention of the applicants' relative, the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case.

VIII. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention

117. In their initial submission the applicants stated that they had been discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnic origin, contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Convention. Article 14 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."
118. The Government disputed this allegation.
119. In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application the applicants stated that they no longer wished to maintain this complaint.
120. The Court 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, 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).
121. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

IX. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

122. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that the

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18 ... 19