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

rticle 2 to conduct an effective investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
115. 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, § 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.
116. It follows that in circumstances where, as here, the criminal investigation into the murder of Saidkhasan Dangayev was ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies, was consequently undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention.
117. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.

VIII. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention

118. In their initial applications 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, 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."
119. The Government disputed this allegation.
120. In their observations of 7 September 2007 the applicants stated that they no longer wished to pursue this complaint.
121. The Court, having regard to Article 37 of the Convention, notes that the applicants do not intend to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). It 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Convention in fine (see, among other authorities, Chojak v. Poland, No. 32220/96, Commission decision of 23 April 1998, unpublished; Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 30024/96, 26 September 2000; and Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
122. 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

123. 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

124. The first applicant made a claim in respect of her husband Saidkhasan Dangayev's loss of earnings. She claimed a total of 262,342.24 Russian roubles (RUR) under this head (7,491 euro (EUR)).
125. She claimed that Saidkhasan Dangayev had been employed as a senior bailiff on a monthly wage of RUR 3,988.14 (EUR 114). She provided a certificate from the Ministry of Justice confirming the amount of his wages. She submitted that she was financially dependent on her husband and would have benefited from his financial support in the above amount of 262,342.24 RUR (EUR 7,491). Her calculations were based on the provisions of the Russian Civil Code and the actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published by the United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department in 2004 ("Ogden tables").
126

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