Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Клейн (Klein) против России» [англ.]

m, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."

A. The parties' submissions

59. The Government submitted that the Colombian authorities had guaranteed that the applicant would have an opportunity to appeal against the judgment in his criminal case. Furthermore, the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been carried out in compliance with the Colombian constitutional and legal safeguards.
60. The applicant maintained his complaint and claimed that the Colombian judicial system was overburdened and inefficient.

B. The Court's assessment

61. The Court recalls its finding that the extradition of the applicant to Colombia would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 57 above). Having no reason to doubt that the respondent Government will comply with the present judgment, it considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is admissible, it is not necessary to decide the hypothetical question whether, in the event of extradition to Colombia, there would also be a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see Saadi, cited above, § 160).

III. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

62. The applicant complained that Russian law provided no effective remedies in relation to his complaint of the risk of ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Colombia. He relied on 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."
63. The Government contested that argument and insisted that the applicant had had effective remedies available to him and had made use of them when challenging the lawfulness of the extradition decision before the Russian courts, pursuant to Article 463 of the CCP.
64. The applicant reiterated his complaint.
65. 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 in paragraph 56 above. In such circumstances 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; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], No. 50385/99, §§ 84 - 86, ECHR 2004-XI; and {Anik} and Others v. Turkey, No. 63758/00, § 86, 5 June 2007).

IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention

66. In his application form of 23 July 2008 the applicant relied on Article 2, rephrasing in substance his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, and on Article 7, complaining that he had been convicted of a crime which, at the time it was committed, had not been punishable under both Russian and Colombian law.
67. In his observations on the admissibility and merits of the case of 18 March 2009 the applicant merely referred to Article 5 of the Convention, without making any complaints under this head. He also alleged that the Vice-President's statement that he should rot in jail, as well as the Reuters news report that Colombian authorities regarded the indication of interim measures as "insulting and flippant" were in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
68. Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose any 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



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 ... 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet