Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.02.2009 «Дело Аюбов (Ayubov) против России» [англ.]

sisted that her family's house with various belongings in it and two cars in the courtyards had been set on fire by the same armed men who had taken away her son, and therefore the State's responsibility under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was engaged. She argued that the infliction of damage on the property had constituted an unjustified interference with the applicant's property rights.
103. The Government argued that the investigation had not established who had destroyed the applicant's property, and therefore there were no grounds to claim that representatives of the federal forces had been involved in that offence.
104. The Court observes first of all that the applicant's wife submitted a certificate attesting that the applicant's property inherited by his son consisted of a destroyed house. She also submitted photographs of two burnt cars and a record showing a number of household belongings. The Government did not call into question the applicant's title to the house at 17 Narvskaya Street or to any other possessions. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant had property rights in respect of the house, the cars and household belongings.
105. The Court further observes that although the Government denied responsibility for the alleged violations of the applicant's rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they conceded that the men who had abducted Adam Ayubov had also damaged the applicant's property. They submitted, in particular, that a criminal investigation had been opened into the abduction of the applicant's son as well as misappropriation and inflicting damage on his property by setting it on fire (see paragraph 27 above) and that photographs of the burnt property submitted by the applicant's other son had been included in the investigation file (see paragraph 29 above). Against this background and in view of its above finding that the men who took Adam Ayubov away on 19 January 2000 were State agents, the Court finds that the actions of the aforementioned men constituted an interference with the applicant's rights secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further notes the absence of any justification on the part of the State for its agents' actions in that regard. The Court accordingly finds that there has been a violation of the applicant's property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

VI. Compliance with Articles 34 and 38 § 1 (a)
of the Convention

106. The applicant's wife complained on his behalf that the Government's refusal to submit a file in criminal case No. 12275 was in breach of the State's obligations under Articles 34 and 38 § 1 of the Convention. The relevant parts of these Articles provide:
Article 34
"The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."
Article 38
"1. If the Court declares the application admissible, it shall
(a) pursue the examination of the case, together with the representatives of the parties, and if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities;
..."
107. The applicant's wife invited the Court to conclude that the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in response to the Court's requests was incompatible with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
108. The Government reiterated that the submission of the entire case file would be contrary to Article 161 of



> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 21 22 23

	Поделиться:	Tweet