see, mutatis mutandis, {Vaari} v. Estonia (dec.), No. 8702/04, 8 July 2008, and Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), No. 48814/07, 26 May 2009). It is for the heir who wishes to pursue the proceedings before the Court to substantiate his or her standing to do so (see, for example, Belskiy (dec.), cited above).
2. Application to the present cases
a. Close kinship condition
37. Turning to the two cases at hand, the Court observes first that, unlike in the Belskiy case (cited above), Mr. V.N. Zakharov and Mrs T.N. Melnikova submitted documents confirming that they were the applicants' close relatives. Furthermore, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the domestic law (see paragraph 30 above), they demonstrated that they had been in charge of the late applicants' funeral and could have claimed pension due to a pensioner but not received in his lifetime. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the condition of close kinship is met.
b. Transferability of the rights at stake
38. As regards transferability of the rights, the Court observes that the applicants had raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement and subsequent quashing of the judgments in their favour. In the case of Sobelin and Others v. Russia (Nos. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 43 - 45, 3 May 2007) concerning non-enforcement and subsequent quashing of the court judgments in the applicants' favour, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application. The rights at stake in the present two cases are very similar to those at the heart of the Sobelin and others case. However, unlike in the aforementioned precedent, in the two cases at hand the Government objected to transferability of the rights at stake. The Court accordingly considers it necessary to examine this issue in more detail.
39. Insofar as the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are concerned, the Court on several occasions continued the examination of cases involving pecuniary claims that were transferable to the deceased applicant's heirs (see, for example, Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, No. 42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII). The Court has previously noted that the question whether such claims were transferable to the persons seeking to pursue an application was an important criterion, but could not be the only one (see, mutatis mutandis, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya YUKOS v. Russia (dec.), No. 14902/04, § 441, 29 January 2009). In fact, cases before the Court generally also have a moral dimension and persons close to an applicant may have a legitimate interest in seeing that justice is done even after the applicant's death (ibid). There is nothing in the cases at hand to justify a departure from this approach. The Court accordingly finds that Mr V.N. Zakharov and Mrs T.N. Melnikova have standing to pursue the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in place of their late relatives.
40. However, as regards Article 6, the Court does not exclude that the situation might in principle be different. In fact, the Court has previously accepted that the late applicants' close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], No. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001, with further references; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), No. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, No. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006, concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment; see also {Horvathova} v. Slovakia, No. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005, in the context of the length of proceedings). However, the Court attaches particular weight to the specific aspect of the "right to a court" at stake in the present two cases, namely the alleged impairment of the principle of legal certainty as a result of the
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 36 37 38
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
