in Article 5 of the Convention.
VI. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention
115. The applicants alleged that the search carried out in the house of the first applicant family on 10 December 2002 was unlawful and constituted a violation of their right to respect of their 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
116. 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 10 December 2002, whereas their application was lodged on 29 April 2005. The Court thus concludes that this part of the 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).
117. 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.
(b) The right to respect for family life
118. The applicants' complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev concerns the same matters 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 should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article 8 of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, No. 34647/97, § 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], No. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII).
VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
119. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of the aforementioned violations, 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."
A. The parties' submissions
120. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at th
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
