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

cle 3 of the Convention, being one of the most fundamental in the scheme of the Convention, has implications for the nature of the remedies which must be guaranteed to the applicant. In particular, the Court has already held on a number of occasions that where the applicant has an arguable claim that he was ill-treated by agents of the State, the notion of an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13 entails the payment of compensation where appropriate, in addition to a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 98, Reports 1996-VI, and {Aydin} v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, § 103, Reports 1997-VI). Seen in these terms the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State's procedural obligation under Article 3 to conduct an effective investigation (see Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 98, Reports 1998-IV, and, mutatis mutandis, Kaya, cited above, § 107).
61. Accordingly, it falls to be ascertained whether, apart from benefiting from an effective and prompt investigation into his Article 3 complaints, the applicant was also afforded "an effective remedy before a national authority" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court therefore finds that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

62. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their Convention obligations under this provision. The Court has already noted that the scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or the omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see Aksoy, cited above, § 95, and {Mentes} and Others v. Turkey, 28 November 1997, § 89, Reports 1997-VIII). The Court further considers that, where an arguable breach of one or more of the rights under the Convention is in issue, there should be available to the victim a mechanism for establishing any liability of State officials or bodies for that breach (see T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 28945/95, § 107, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)). Furthermore, in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be available as part of the range of redress (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V).
63. Turning to the circumstances of the present case the Court observes, and it was not in dispute between the parties, that the applicant sustained serious injuries resulting from police officer N.'s conduct. The effective investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaints alone could not redress the physical and psychological damage flowing from the direct and deliberate invasion of the applicant's bodily integrity and therefore represented only one part of the group of measures necessary to provide redress for the ill-treatment by the State agent (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, No. 41461/02, § 79, 24 July 2008). The ap



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet