e searches carried out in their houses during and after the abduction of their relatives were unlawful and constituted a violation of their right to respect for home. They further complained that the disappearance of their close relatives after their detention by the State authorities caused them distress and anguish which had amounted to a violation of their right to family life. They referred to Article 8 of the Convention, which 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."
(a) The right to respect for home
i. Alleged violation of the right to respect for home by the applicants of Lecha Basayev's family
172. The Court reiterates that 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 6 July 2002, whereas their application was lodged on 19 April 2005. The Court thus concludes that this part of their 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).
173. 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.
ii. Alleged violation of the right to respect for home by the applicants of Lema Dikayev's family
174. In their observations on admissibility and merits applicants seven to eleven stated that they no longer wished their complaints under Articles 8 of the Convention to be examined.
175. The Court, having regard to Article 37 of the Convention, finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). The Court also finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the further examination of the present complaints by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see, for example, Chojak v. Poland, No. 32220/96, Commission decision of 23 April 1998; Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 30024/96, 26 September 2000; and Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
176. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
(b) The right to respect for family life
177. The applicants' complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev concerns the same facts 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
> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 ... 26 27 28
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
