Anguelova v. Bulgaria, No. 38361/97, §§ 161 - 162, ECHR 2002-IV, and {Suheyla Aydin} v. Turkey, No. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005). The Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State's obligation under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 183, 24 February 2005).
108. It follows that in circumstances where, as here, the criminal investigation into the disappearance and ill-treatment has been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies suggested by the Government, has consequently been undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention.
109. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
110. As regards the violation of Article 3 of the Convention found on account of the applicant's mental suffering as a result of the disappearance of her husband, her inability to find out what had happened to him and the way the authorities had handled her complaints, the Court notes that it has already found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities' conduct that led to the suffering endured by the applicant. The Court considers that, in the circumstances, no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention.
111. As regards the applicant's reference to Article 5 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements and in view of its above findings of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention as a result of unacknowledged detention, the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case.
VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
112. 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
113. The applicant claimed pecuniary damage in the amount of 120,000 euros (EUR), that is EUR 12,000 for each of the ten years during which she had and would still have to be bringing up her five children alone.
114. The Government regarded these claims as totally unsubstantiated.
115. The Court reiterates that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, "failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part". Since the applicant has failed to produce any calculations regarding the pecuniary damage claimed, the Court decides to make no award under this head (see Elmurzayev and Others v. Russia, No. 3019/04, § 156, 12 June 2008).
B. Non-pecuniary damage
116. The applicant claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her husband, the indifference shown by the authorities towards him and the failure to provide any information about his fate.
117. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
118. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention, ill-treatment and disappearance of the appli
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
