Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 «Дело Ненкаев и другие (Nenkayev and others) против России» [англ.]

ld furnish all necessary facilities to make possible a proper and effective examination of applications.
207. This obligation requires the Contracting States to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court, whether it is conducting a fact-finding investigation or performing its general duties as regards the examination of applications. It is inherent in the proceedings relating to cases of this nature, where individual applicants accuse State agents of violating their rights under the Convention, that in certain instances it is only the respondent State that has access to information capable of corroborating or refuting these allegations. A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their possession without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. In a case where the application raises issues as to the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Court's proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see {Tanrikulu} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23763/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IV).
208. The Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation file opened into the disappearance of the applicants' relative, the Government refused to produce such a copy, relying on Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having provided only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status, and of the transcripts of the interviews with the first and fifth applicants. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this reference insufficient to justify refusal (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 123).
209. Referring to the importance of a respondent Government's cooperation in Convention proceedings, and mindful of the difficulties associated with the establishment of facts in cases of such a nature, the Court finds that the Government fell short of their obligations under Article 38 § 1 of the Convention because of their failure to submit copies of the documents requested in respect of the disappearance of Muslim Nenkayev.

IX. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

210. 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. Damage

211. The applicants did not claim any pecuniary damages. They claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their family member, the indifference shown by the authorities towards them and the failure to provide any information about the fate of their close relative. The first and second applicants claimed 80,000 euros (EUR) each, the third applicant claimed EUR 40,000, the fourth to ninth applicants claimed EUR 30,000 each and the tenth applicant claimed EUR 10,000.
212. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated.
213. The Court has found violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of Muslim Nenkayev, as well as lack of effective remedies as regards the violation of his right to life. The third applicant has been found to have been a victim of violations of Articles 3 and 5, while the first and second applicants have been found to have



> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24 25

	Поделиться:	Tweet