nts submitted no information to prove their attempts to apply to a domestic court to claim compensation. In these circumstances, the Court finds that no separate issues arise under Article 6 of the Convention.
VI. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention
183. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that Russian servicemen had unlawfully entered their house and searched it. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:
"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."
184. The Government submitted that the applicants had not complained about the search to the investigators before 3 March 2006. They referred in this respect to the second and fourth applicants' interviews of 15 and 16 November 2003.
185. The applicants contested the Government's argument and submitted that they had informed the district prosecutor's office that some household items had been stolen from them. They referred to the interviews with the Nenkayev family members of 16 January 2006.
186. The Court does not deem it necessary to examine the Government's preliminary objection joined to the merits concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to this complaint for the following reason.
187. The Court first notes that the parties have not disputed that the applicants did not complain to the investigators of the fact of the search of their house on 8 June 2002 before 16 January 2006. It therefore considers it established that the applicants brought their grievances in this respect to the attention of the authorities three years and seven months after the events in question.
188. The Court further reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that the Court may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final decision. Where it is clear from the outset however that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on, or prejudice to, the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 76573/01, 2 July 2002). It also emphasises that it is not open to the Court to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection based on it (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 34979/97, Reports 2000-I).
189. The Court has no reasons to believe that prior to January 2006 the applicants were in any manner precluded from lodging a complaint concerning the allegedly unlawful search of their home given that the complaints about the abduction of Muslim Nenkayev and the third applicant were submitted to the authorities in the morning that followed the crime. The applicants produced no explanation to their failure to promptly file a complaint about the search at national level.
190. In such circumstances the Court considers that the applicants must have regarded domestic remedies available to them concerning the search of their house, such as a complaint to an investigative authority, as ineffective from the very beginning of their attempts to have the abduction of Muslim Nenkayev and the third applicant investigated. Moreover, on 15 August 2002 the district prosecutor's office notified the first applicant that the investigation in case No. 61116 concerned only
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
