t while, in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, those seeking to bring their case against the State before the Court are required to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system, there is no obligation under the said provision to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective. If no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month period in principle runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), No. 62566/000 et seq., 10 January 2002). There is no evidence that the applicants properly raised before the domestic authorities their complaints alleging a breach of their right to respect for home. But even assuming that in the circumstances of the present case no remedies were available to the applicants, the events complained of took place on 14 January 2003, whereas their application was lodged on 20 September 2005. The Court thus concludes that this part of the application was lodged outside the six-month limit (see Musayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 74239/01, 1 June 2006, and Ruslan Umarov v. Russia (dec.), No. 12712/02, 8 February 2007).
117. It follows that this part of the application was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) The right to respect for family life
118. The applicants' complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Aslambek Ismailov, Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev concerns the same matters as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provisions, the Court considers that this complaint should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article 8 of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, No. 34647/97, § 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], No. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, judgment of 16 December 1997, § 50 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII).
VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
119. 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
120. 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 and they could also claim damages through civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.
121. The applicants reiterated the complaint.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
122. 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
123. 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. According to the Court's settled case-law, the effect of Article 13
> 1 2 3 ... 37 38 39 ... 41 42 43
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
