Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.03.2009 «Дело Халитова (Khalitova) против России» [англ.]

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. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their Convention obligations under this provision. The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by acts or omissions by the authorities of the respondent State (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 95, Reports 1996-VI).
77. 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; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 117, Reports 1998-VIII; 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 Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 384, 18 June 2002).
78. In view of the Court's findings above with regard to Article 2, the applicant's complaint was 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 applicant should accordingly have been able to avail herself 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.
79. The Court has held in a number of similar cases that in circumstances where, as in the present case, the criminal investigation into the death was ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including the civil remedies, was consequently undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Musayeva and Others v. Russia, No. 74239/01, § 118, 26 July 2007, or Kukayev, cited above, § 117).
80. It therefore dismisses the Government's argument that the applicant had effective remedies under the criminal or civil law and finds that there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.

IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

81. 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. Damage

82. The applicant claimed 80,000 euros (EUR), on behalf of herself and her three minor children, in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering which she had endured as a result of the loss of her husband - father to her children - and the authorities' failure properly to investigate the matter.
83. The Government contested the applicant's claim as excessive.
84. The Court observes that it has found a violation of Art

> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14