s Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
158. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
VIII. Alleged violation of Article 3
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
159. In the observations on admissibility and merits of 7 April 2008 the applicants referred to the statement by the Chechen FSB of which they had learned from the Government after the communication of the present application. The statement read that Idris Gakiyev had participated in the State Duma elections on 7 December 2003. The applicants then vaguely claimed that, as a result of his kidnapping by State servicemen, Idris Gakiyev had been deprived of his right to participate in the elections to the State Duma. They invoked Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads:
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
160. The Court does not deem it necessary to establish whether the applicants have complied with the six-month rule in respect of this complaint or whether or not it is manifestly ill-founded because it considers it inadmissible for the following reasons.
161. The Court reiterates at the outset that a person, non-governmental organisation or a group of individuals must, in order to be able to lodge a petition in pursuance of Article 34, claim "to be the victim of a violation... of the rights set forth in the Convention..." While it is true the rules of admissibility governed by Article 35 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, Article 34 requires that an individual applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation he alleges (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A No. 28); it does not institute for individuals a kind of actio popularis for the interpretation of the Convention or permit individuals to complain against a law simply because they feel that it contravenes the Convention (see Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 31, Series A No. 142). The same applies to events or decisions which are alleged to infringe the Convention (see Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 24790/04, 8 March 2005).
162. The existence of a victim of a violation, that is to say, an individual who is personally affected by an alleged violation of a Convention right, is indispensable for putting the protection mechanism of the Convention into motion, although this criterion is not to be applied in a rigid, mechanical and inflexible way throughout the proceedings (see Karner v. Austria, No. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX). Therefore, in order for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, he must be able to show that he has been directly affected by the impugned measure (see Sanles and Sanles v. Spain (dec.), No. 48335/99, 26 October 2000).
163. Turning to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that Idris Gakiyev's remains were discovered on 29 March 2004 and that his parents raised this complaint for the first time on 7 April 2008, that is, more than four years after the presumed date of death. In this connection, the Court observes that in various cases where an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or close family members who expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], No. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI). The Court notes, however, that the present case must be distinguished from those cases which were introduced by the applicants themselves and only continued by their relatives after
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 21 ... 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
