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
104. The Court reiterates that in circumstances where, as here, a criminal investigation into a killing has been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed has consequently been undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
105. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention
106. The applicant complained under Article 14 that the aforementioned violation of her rights occurred because of her Chechen ethnic origin and residence in Chechnya. The respective Article reads as follows:
"The enjoyment of the right 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."
107. The Court observes that no evidence has been submitted that the applicant was treated differently from persons in an analogous situation without objective and reasonable justification, or that she has ever raised this complaint before the domestic authorities. It thus finds that this complaint has not been substantiated (see, for example, Musikhanova and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 27243/03, 10 July 2007).
108. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
109. 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
110. The applicant claimed damages in respect of loss of earnings by her son Ramzan Suleymanov after his killing, claiming a total of 118,918 Russian roubles (RUB) under this heading (2,900 euros (EUR)).
111. She claimed that her son had been employed as a lorry driver at the time of the incident, but that she was unable to obtain salary statements for him. Therefore, she based her calculations on the basis of the subsistence level established by national law and calculated her son's earnings for the period, taking into account an average inflation rate of 13.67%. Her calculations were also based on the actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published by the United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department in 2007 ("the Ogden tables").
112. The Government disputed the applicant's claims under this head as unsubstantiated.
113. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (see, among other authorities, {Cakici} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV). The Court finds that there is indeed a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicant's son Ramzan Suleymanov and the loss by the applicant of the financial support which he could have provided for her. Having regard to the applicant's submissions, the Court does not consider that the amount sought by her is excessive. It therefore awards EUR 2,900 to the
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
