Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.02.2009 «Дело Хайдаева и другие (Khaydayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

1/97, §§ 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 v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 183, 24 February 2005).
152. 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.
153. 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.
154. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
155. As regards the violation of Article 3 of the Convention found on account of the applicants' mental suffering as a result of the disappearance of their close relatives, their inability to find out what had happened to them and the way the authorities handled their complaints, the Court notes that it 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 under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.

VII. Alleged violations of Article 14 of the Convention

156. In their initial application form the applicants stated that they had been discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnic origin. They relied on 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."
157. In their observations on admissibility and merits of 28 January 2008 the applicants stated that they no longer wished their complaints under Article 14 of the Convention to be examined.
158. 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 relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require it to continue the examination of the present complaints under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see Stamatios Karagiannis, cited above, § 28).
159. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

160. 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

161. The third and fourth applicants claimed that they had sustained damage in respect

> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 21 ... 22