Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Дангаева и Тарамова (Dangayeva and Taramova) против России» [англ.]

2. Merits

106. The Court considers that in the present case no separate issues arise beyond those already examined under Articles 2 and 13 (see paragraphs 110 - 117 below).
107. In these circumstances, while the Court does not doubt that the death of the applicants' close relative caused the applicants profound suffering, it nevertheless finds no basis for finding a violation of Article 3 in this context (see Tangiyeva v. Russia, No. 57935/00, §§ 104 - 105, 29 November 2007).

VI. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

108. The applicants alleged that they had had no access to a court as they were unable to bring a civil action for compensation for their relative's murder since the investigation had produced no results. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
109. The Court observes that the applicants submitted no evidence to prove their alleged intention to claim compensation through the domestic courts. Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Musikhanova and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 27243/03, 10 July 2007).

VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

110. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of the aforementioned violations, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

A. The parties' submissions

111. The applicants reiterated their complaint.
112. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and to bring civil claims for damages, but had failed to do so. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

113. 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

114. The Court 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. 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 and infliction of treatment contrary to Article 3, 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 - 162, ECHR 2002-IV, and {Suheyla Aydyn} 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 A

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16 ... 17 18