Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело Максимов (Maksimov) против России» [англ.]

.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

56. Before examining, if necessary, whether the applicant had at his disposal an effective remedy by which to complain about the ill-treatment he had sustained at the hands of the police on 24 April 2000, the Court needs to assess whether Article 13 of the Convention is in fact applicable, taking into account the fact that the Court has not been called upon to address a violation of the applicant's right guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention.
57. In this connection the Court reiterates its finding in the case of Klass and Others v. Germany (6 September 1978, §§ 63 - 64, Series A No. 28), which read as follows:
"...Article 13 states that any individual whose Convention rights and freedoms "are violated" is to have an effective remedy before a national authority even where "the violation has been committed" by persons in an official capacity. This provision, read literally, seems to say that a person is entitled to a national remedy only if a "violation" has occurred. However, a person cannot establish a "violation" before a national authority unless he is first able to lodge with such an authority a complaint to that effect. Consequently, ....it cannot be a prerequisite for the application of Article 13 that the Convention be in fact violated. In the Court's view, Article 13 requires that where an individual considers himself to have been prejudiced by a measure allegedly in breach of the Convention, he should have a remedy before a national authority in order both to have his claim decided and, if appropriate, to obtain redress. Thus Article 13 must be interpreted as guaranteeing an "effective remedy before a national authority" to everyone who claims that his rights and freedoms under the Convention have been violated."
58. The Court has since translated its finding in Klass (cited above) into the notion that a person with an "arguable claim" of being the victim of a violation of a right enshrined in the Convention should be able to seek a remedy (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A No. 61). Ever since, Article 13 has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII).
59. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the parties did not dispute that on 24 April 2000 the applicant had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The domestic authorities conducted a criminal investigation into the applicant's grievances and found former police officer N. guilty of gross abuse of position in that he had broken into the applicant's house and had assaulted him and his daughter, causing them serious injury (see paragraph 19 above). The fact that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment were ultimately substantiated makes his claim an "arguable" one for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 107, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, and Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 147, Reports 1996-V).
60. The Court does not however lose sight of the fact that the criminal investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaints, the promptness and efficiency of which the applicant did not dispute, resulted in the criminal conviction and sentencing of the perpetrator. At the same time, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant argued that he had been unable to obtain sufficient compensation for the damage resulting from the inhuman treatment inflicted by a State agent. In this regard the Court reiterates that the nature of the right guaranteed by Arti



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet