Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Сериевы (Seriyevy) против России» [англ.]

h, 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..."
120. In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application the applicants stated that they no longer wished to maintain this complaint.
121. The Court finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). The Court also 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, for example, Chojak v. Poland, No. 32220/96, Commission decision of 23 April 1998; 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.

VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

123. 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

124. 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. The Government also stated that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. They further pointed out that the applicants had successfully applied to domestic courts for compensation for damage caused by the death of Bilkis Askhabayeva. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.
125. The applicants reiterated the complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

a. The applicants' complaint in respect of the death of Bilkis Askhabayeva
126. In so far as the complaint under Article 13 concerns the existence of a domestic remedy in respect of the applicants' complaints under Articles 2 and 3 raised in connection with the death of Bilkis Askhabayeva, the Court notes that these complaints were found inadmissible in paragraphs 92 and 106 above. Accordingly, the applicants did not have an "arguable claim" of a violation of a substantive Convention provision and, therefore, Article 13 of the Convention is inapplicable. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
b. The applicants' complaint in respect of the abduction of Sarali Seriyev
127. As for the applicants' complaint concerning the lack of effective remedies in respect of the disappearance of Sarali Seriyev, 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

128. The Court reiterates that in circumstances where, as here, a criminal investigation into the disappearance has been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed, including c



> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet