Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.05.2010 «Дело Ходжаев (Khodzhayev) против России» [англ.]

B. Merits

147. The Court refers to its finding that the extradition of the applicant to Tajikistan would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 105 above). Having no reason to doubt that the respondent Government will comply with the present judgment, it considers that it is not necessary to decide the hypothetical question whether, in the event of extradition to Tajikistan, there would also be a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Saadi, cited above, § 160).

IV. Alleged violations of Article 13 of the Convention

148. The applicant contended that he had had no effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"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."
149. The Government contested the applicant's arguments and claimed that he had had effective domestic remedies as regards his grievances.
150. The applicant maintained his complaint.
151. As regards the complaint concerning lack of effective remedies regarding the risk of ill-treatment that the applicant would run in Tajikistan, the Court observes that the complaint made by the applicant under this Article has already been examined in the context of Article 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings (see paragraph 104 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 is admissible, there is no need to make a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Shaipova and Others v. Russia, No. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], No. 50385/99, §§ 84 - 86, ECHR 2004-XI).
152. As regards the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements. In view of the above finding of a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention.

V. Other alleged violations of the Convention

153. Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complained that in the decision of 4 June 2008 the Russian Deputy Prosecutor General had stated in affirmative terms that the applicant had committed crimes before any tribunal had proved him guilty.
154. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and as far as it is within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant's submissions disclose no appearance of violations of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

155. 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

156. The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
157. The Government considered the amount claimed to be excessive.
158. The Court notes that it has found a combin



> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23

	Поделиться:	Tweet