ssment of the complexity of the case, the conduct of all concerned as well as the total length of the proceedings, the Court considers that the latter did not go beyond what may be considered reasonable in this particular case.
167. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VI. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention
168. The applicant further complained under Article 8 about restrictions on family visits. Article 8 provides:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
169. The applicant submitted that the detention facility authorities had unlawfully postponed or cancelled visits although his wife had been in possession of a valid visiting permission issued by the investigator. As a result, the applicant had only had three family visits in 2006 and no visits at all in 2007.
170. The Government submitted that every time the applicant's relatives had applied for permission to visit, they had received such permission. None of their applications had been refused. In total, the applicant had had seven family visits.
171. The Court reiterates that restrictions on family visits may constitute interference with the exercise of an applicant's right to respect for his family life, guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Messina v. Italy (No. 2), No. 25498/94, § 62, ECHR 2000-X). In the present case, however, the Government denied that any restrictions had been imposed and contended that the infrequency of family visits in the applicant's case was accounted for by the fact that his relatives had rarely sought a meeting with him. The applicant failed to present the Court with any evidence to the contrary. He did not produce any applications for permission to visit which had been refused or any complaints to the domestic authorities concerning any visits which had been denied despite presentation of a valid visiting permission. Accordingly, the Court is unable to establish that there was interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family life.
172. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
173. Lastly, the applicant complained that he did not have an effective remedy against violations of his rights under Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"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."
174. The Court notes that it has found the applicant's complaints under Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 8 manifestly ill-founded. For similar reasons, the applicant did not have an "arguable claim" of a breach of those Articles. Consequently, Article 13 is not engaged (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A No. 131, § 52).
175. It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
