wledged detention, the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case.
VIII. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention
129. The applicants complained that they had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, because the violations of which they complained had taken place because they were resident in Chechnya and because of their ethnic origin as Chechens. This was contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"The enjoyment of the right and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
130. The Court observes that no evidence has been submitted to it that suggests that the applicants were treated differently from persons in an analogous situation without objective and reasonable justification, or that they have ever raised this complaint before the domestic authorities. It thus finds that this complaint has not been substantiated.
131. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IX. Alleged violation of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention
132. The third applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that property had been unlawfully seized on the night of her husband's abduction. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention 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."
133. The Court refers to the principles under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see § 116 above). There is no evidence that the applicant properly raised before the domestic authorities her complaint alleging a breach of the right to respect for her property. But even assuming that in the circumstances of the present case no remedies were available to the applicant, the events complained of took place on 10 December 2002, whereas this 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, cited above; and Ruslan Umarov, cited above).
134. 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.
X. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
135. 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. The Government's objection
136. The Government submitted that the document containing the applicants' claims for just satisfaction had been signed by Mr O. Solvang and Mr R. Lemaitre while, in the Government's opinion, the applicants had been represented by Ms E. Ezhova, Ms A. Maltseva, Mr A. Sakalov and Mr A. Nikolayev. They insisted therefore that the applicants' claims for just satisfaction were invalid.
137. The Court points out that the applicants issued powers of attorney in the name of the SRJI, an NGO that collaborates with a number of lawyers. Since the SRJI lists Mr O. Solvang and Mr R. Lemaitre as staff
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 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
