licants further complained under Article 8 of the Convention about unlawful searches of their homes, carried out by Russian servicemen on the night of their relatives' abduction. In so far as relevant, the respective Convention provisions provide:
Article 6
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 8
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his...home...
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."
115. As regards the applicants' complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court observes that the applicants submitted no information which would prove their alleged intention to apply to a domestic court with a claim for compensation. Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Atabayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 26064/02, 7 June 2007, or Musikhanova and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 27243/03, 10 July 2007).
116. As to the applicants' complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, 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).
117. In the instant case, the Court notes that it has not been furnished with any evidence confirming that the applicants attempted to bring their complaint, as raised before the Court, to the attention of the national authorities. Assuming that in the circumstances of the present case no remedies were available to the applicants, the events complained of took place on 27 March 2004, whereas the present application was lodged on 6 October 2004, more than six months later. The applicants, who had eye-witnessed the events complained of, did not submit any evidence that they had been in any way precluded from lodging their complaint in time. 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 (see Musayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 74239/01, 1 June 2006; Aziyev and Aziyeva v. Russia (dec.), No. 77626/01, 21 September 2006; or Ruslan Umarov v. Russia (dec.), No. 12712/02, 8 February 2007).
VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
118. Lastly, the applicants complained of the lack of effective remedies in respect of the violations of their rights secured by Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention, 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."
119. The applicants insisted that they had no effective remedies at their disposal in the absence of any conclusions from the investigation into the abduction and killing of their relatives.
120. The Government contended
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
