text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
88. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have any effective domestic remedy in respect of his allegedly infringed rights, as the Senate of the Supreme Court had ruled that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers was a political decision. He considered that an application for supervisory review by a public prosecutor was not an effective remedy since a decision by the latter in the instant case would not be subject to appeal. | 2 |
83. The applicant complained that conditions of his detention were contrary to Article 3, regard being had to the tolerance of smoking in the cells, shortage of medicaments and inaccessibility to him of quality medical assistance. He further complained under the same provision that in March 2004 he had been ill-treated by police officers and that the investigation of his respective complaint had been ineffective. In the latter respect he also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant provision reads as follows: | 2 |
77. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by refusing to examine the proportionality of the sanction imposed on her, the Supreme Administrative Court had deprived her of an effective remedy, and that Bulgarian law did not lay down any criteria governing the manner in which the Minister of Justice was to exercise his powers in relation to the striking of persons off the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators. | 2 |
49. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the courts did not examine all factors relevant to the lawfulness of his detention. In addition, the applicant claimed that his appeals of 28 June 1999 and 11 October 1999 were decided in violation of the requirement for a speedy decision and that the courts did not hear his appeal of 8 September 1999. The applicant also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention. | 2 |
113. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
132. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
60. The Government contended that either the applicant could not be considered to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention or the complaint was manifestly ill-founded, because the applicant had access to an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention, but chose not to make use of it. The Government noted that the Bankruptcy Court had a supervisory duty and could set aside decisions made, or give the trustee directions, or do whatever else was necessary if the debtor’s rights were infringed, (see section 128 of the Bankruptcy Act then applicable). Thus, the Bankruptcy Court could have given the trustee directions about the administration of the estate, ordered the trustee to complete the accounts, or removed the trustee pursuant to section 113(3) of the Bankruptcy Act then applicable, inter alia, due to slow or otherwise incompetent administration of the estate. It could also have fixed an ultimate date for the final meeting of creditors in the estate or decided to apply section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act at an earlier stage of the proceedings, even if all the parties to the case, including the applicant, objected. Accordingly, regardless of whether the courts could have provided the applicant with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred, the remedies which could have expedited the decisions taken during the proceedings had to be considered “effective”. | 2 |
114. The applicant company complained that it had been deprived of a fair hearing and had not had an effective remedy because the domestic courts refused to accept its complaint in 2012, stating that it was under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 28 and 29 above) while it was impossible under domestic law to address the Constitutional Court with an individual constitutional complaint. The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in the present case should be viewed as lex specialis in relation to Article 13. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 reads as follows: | 2 |
68. The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their brother and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant: | 2 |
106. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented the applicants from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants should have made more use of that possibility which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13. | 2 |
42. The Government raised an objection, arguing that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to her. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. | 2 |
39. The applicant, who submitted that he would run a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he were removed to Eritrea, complained of the absence in domestic law of a remedy with suspensive effect in respect of decisions refusing aliens leave to enter the country and ordering their removal, whether or not they were asylum-seekers and whatever the risks, alleged or real. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3, which provide: | 2 |
90. The applicant also complained that there had been no grounds for his arrest on 13 October 2010. Furthermore, his arrest had been conducted in violation of the domestic law and he had been taken to the police station under a false pretext. He also complained that the domestic courts had not taken into account the time of his actual arrest and therefore he had spent an additional twenty-six hours in detention. The applicant maintained that the domestic legislation did not provide for compensation for unlawful detention in cases like his. He complained that he had had no effective domestic remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest and detention after the three-day period of administrative arrest had expired. He referred to Article 5 §§ 1 (a) and (c) and 5 and Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
42. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that (1) the domestic courts, in determining the dispute concerning the annulment of the sales contract and of the certificate of joint ownership, incorrectly evaluated the facts and evidence, and made unlawful conclusions; (2) they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings of 4 October 2002 and (3) they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings which terminated with the decision of 29 November 2002. They also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in connection with all three sets of proceedings, which, in so far as relevant, provide: | 2 |
81. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the national courts' ruling that his contact with I.K. had to be supervised because he suffered from a mental illness; under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of the violation of his Convention rights; and that the fact that custody of I.K. was given to his former wife violated Article 5 of Protocol No. 7. He also invoked Article 17 of the Convention. | 2 |
67. The applicant complained that the proceedings in his case had been unfair, stating in particular that his conviction had been based on false evidence and self-incriminating statements obtained under torture, that the courts had refused to call defence witnesses or allow him to put questions to the prosecution witnesses, including the father of one of the victims, and to the experts, and that his appeal in cassation had been heard in his absence. He relied upon Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
87. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. They submitted that the relatives of the missing person had been declared victims and had received reasoned replies to all the requests they made in the context of the investigation. | 2 |
30. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the “effective remedy” mentioned in Article <mask> of the Convention necessarily referred to a remedy in the domestic law of the “TRNC”. Turkey could neither interfere with the judicial system of the “TRNC” nor provide remedies to supplement those existing under domestic law. In the light of the above, the Government submitted that no issue under Article 13 could be raised by the present application. | 2 |
55. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he had not been duly summoned for the hearing before the Court of Appeal and that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted an unreasonably long time. Lastly, he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 without further specification. | 2 |
40. The applicant also complained, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 23 March 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which is a lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, § 69 and M.A. and M.M. v. France (dec.), no. 39671/98, ECHR 1999-VIII). | 2 |
65. The applicant complained under Articles 5, 6 §§ 2 and 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unlawfully detained, that he had not been assisted by counsel on 7 August 2001 and that counsel had not been invited to an interview with the assistant prosecutor on 19 October 2001, that the domestic courts had refused to observe certain items of evidence, that his request for various expert examinations had not been successful, and that the investigating authorities and domestic courts had committed various procedural violations. | 2 |
41. The applicant also complained that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial. She noted that, in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the events in question, the selection of candidates to judicial positions in Azerbaijan was performed by the Judicial Legal Council under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, presided over by the Minister of Justice. The applicant alleged that, in such circumstances, the judges of the domestic courts could not be independent and impartial in the proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, because their subsequent re-appointment to the courts would depend on the discretion of the Minister of Justice as the Chairman of the Judicial Legal Council. Furthermore, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts could not be considered as an effective remedy because they had never ruled against the Ministry of Justice in cases concerning the delays in registration of non-governmental organisations. | 2 |
283. The applicants submitted that had there been a court order banning their assembly, an appeal to a higher court against such an order would have been an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of their right to freedom of assembly. As far as prosecutions were concerned, appeals to higher courts constituted an effective remedy which the applicants had exhausted. However, they had not been prosecuted under Article 185-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, thus depriving them of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint. For them, this constituted a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads: | 2 |
106. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
153. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
134. The applicant complained that he had not had an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Finally, relying on Article 14 of the Convention the applicant alleged that he had been discriminated against because he had been tried by a State Security Court instead of a juvenile court. | 2 |
85. The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
245. The applicant maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the failure of the public authorities for which Turkey was responsible to conduct a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation into the circumstances of her husband's murder, and their failure to carry out a proper post-mortem examination, indicated that those responsible for investigation and public prosecution had a similarly blinkered approach to the allegations of a politically-motivated killing by agents of the “TRNC” regime or of the respondent Government. She claimed that the same considerations applied to her allegations of a campaign of monitoring, harassment, intimidation and discrimination against her. In further breach of Article 13, the applicant had been denied any effective remedy because of the failure to secure the independence of the legal profession in the territory controlled by the “TRNC” regime, with the result that qualified lawyers had repeatedly refused to give legal assistance to the applicant to obtain effective legal redress. | 2 |
164. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. The applicants had never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13. | 2 |
148. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court and in fact made use of it when challenging lawfulness of the decision of 20 September 2003. They could also claim damages through civil proceedings. | 2 |
141. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment in police custody, and that their refusal to open a criminal case had made it impossible for him to be granted the status of “victim”, which could have entitled him to compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. Article 13 reads as follows: | 2 |
46. The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of their property rights had disregarded their arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. Lastly, they complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their national origin – they submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish. | 2 |
473. The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant: | 2 |
73. The applicant complained that on 23 October 2001 and 21 January 2002 he had been beaten and humiliated by officers of the special-purpose unit of UIN. He also complained, referring to Article <mask> of the Convention, that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the events of 23 October 2001 and 21 January 2002. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s substantive and procedural obligations flowing from Article 3, cited above. | 2 |
104. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, which they had failed to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
45. The Government raised an objection in respect of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant, claiming also that he did not have victim status in respect of his complaint of lack of effective remedies. The Court considers that these two issues are closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaints concerning inhuman and degrading treatment on account of being detained in inadequate conditions, including in solitary confinement, and being deprived of effective medical care. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
29. The applicant association complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention, that it had not had an effective remedy against the alleged violation of its freedom of assembly. In particular, it alleged that it had not had at its disposal any procedure which would have allowed it to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned demonstrations. These provisions read as follows: | 2 |
110. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had availed themselves of it. The Government further added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
135. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that she had received reasoned replies to all her requests and queries made in the context of the investigation and had been able to lodge a court complaint against actions of the investigating authorities, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the Government, the fact that this complaint was disallowed by the domestic courts did not indicate that the remedy invoked by them had been ineffective. The Government further argued that if the applicant had considered that any action or omission of public officials had caused her damage, she could have sought compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of this argument, the Government referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia dated 19 October 2004 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful actions of a prosecutor’s office. The Government did not enclose a copy of that decision. | 2 |
69. The applicant complained of the discontinuation of the judicial proceedings in respect of his application for a residence order and an order depriving A.’s mother of parental authority. He also complained of the failure to inform him of the appeal hearing of 27 February 2013. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which read as follows: | 2 |
49. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the lack of access to a court and lack of an effective remedy in this respect. The Court notes that, although the applicant invoked both Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, her complaint is more properly examined under the latter Article alone. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows: | 2 |
63. The applicants submitted that the refusal by the domestic courts to examine the merits of the application for judicial review of the NRTC's decision had deprived them of an effective remedy. They referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (cited above), and argued that the Supreme Administrative Court's holding that the competent bodies enjoyed unreviewable discretion when examining applications for licences had been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, which required a remedy allowing full examination of the necessity of the interference with their Article 9 and Article 10 rights. | 2 |
89. The applicant complained that he had not had an effective legal remedy at his disposal in respect of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been unable to get the sale of the house revoked on the grounds that the debt to company J. had been repaid. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 2 |
32. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies with regard to her complaint about the length of the proceedings. They submitted that administrative hierarchical complaints about the length of proceedings may be lodged with the president of the competent court, with the president of the superior court or with the Ministry of Justice, and that this system, governed by Act no. 335/1991 (which was replaced on 1 April 2002 by Act no. 2/2002), is complemented by the possibility of filing constitutional appeals and complaints under State Liability Act no. 82/1998 (which amended Act no. 58/1969). Moreover, the system of domestic remedies against delays in the proceedings was completed by the appointment of the Ombudsman (Act no. 349/1999). The Government concluded that this system fully satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
57. The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her brother and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the violations alleged, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant: | 2 |
63. The applicants stressed that their applications concerned their summary expulsion on 13 August 2014 and not the subsequent proceedings referred to by the Government, which related to different facts. In any event, only domestic remedies which had suspensive effect, and were therefore deemed effective, had to be exhausted. In the applicants’ submission, Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention were closely linked (they referred to Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 212, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). As far as their summary expulsion on 13 August 2014 was concerned, they had not access to any effective remedy which they could have exercised before applying to the Court. | 2 |
160. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the authorities had opened a criminal investigation on the date on which the applicants’ relatives had been killed and during that investigation the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal, both to senior prosecutors and to a court, against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities, or against the decision of 24 April 2003 to discontinue the criminal proceedings. In addition, throughout the investigation and after its termination it had been open to the applicants to file a claim for compensation in civil proceedings. In this latter respect the Government relied on the Khashiyev case in which the applicant had sought and obtained compensation for the death of his relatives (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, §§ 39-42). | 2 |
11. The applicants complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgments of the Krasnyy Luch Court given in their favour in due time. They invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The third applicant additionally invoked Article <mask> of the Convention on the same grounds as Article 6 § 1. These provisions, insofar as relevant, provide as follows: | 2 |
130. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
179. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to lodge a civil claim for compensation and challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
138. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
115. The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, whereby he had been deprived of his Lithuanian citizenship, had been unfair. He further argued that he had had no remedy, in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention, to challenge the loss of Lithuanian citizenship following the decision of the Constitutional Court of 30 December 2003. In the same connection, the applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against as a person of Russian ethnicity, to the extent that he had automatically lost Lithuanian citizenship following the acquisition of a Russian passport. | 2 |
146. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings, and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
133. The Government argued that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants had received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Besides, the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. | 2 |
162. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal to a court against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants had not made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13. | 2 |
120. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Abdul-Yazit Askhabov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. She could also have claimed civil damages. | 2 |
39. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the investigation of the disappearance of Mr Kamil Mutayev had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. They could also have claimed civil damages. | 2 |
113. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. She had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
53. The applicant submitted a bill of costs in the amount of GBP 6139.38 (inclusive of value-added tax – “VAT”). The Government considered this to be excessive and suggested that a reasonable figure would be GBP 3000 (inclusive of VAT). They referred, inter alia, to the number of hours of legal work billed as regards the applicant’s response to the Government’s first observations, to the similarity between this case and the above-cited Hood case for which latter applicant the present representative also acted and to the fact that certain complaints were declared inadmissible (under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5, Article 6 § 3(a) and (b) and Article <mask> of the Convention). | 2 |
113. The applicants contended that the investigation into the murder of Ali and Umar Musayev had been pending with no tangible results for several years, and that their attempt to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the unlawful detention of their relatives had proved unsuccessful, and that they therefore had no effective remedies against the aforementioned violations, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
58. The applicant also complained about a violation of his rights in respect of the Warsaw Regional Court’s decision of 13 January 2005 which rejected his complaint about the excessive length of proceedings. He did not invoke any provision of the Convention in this respect. The Court considers that the applicant raised in substance a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the protracted length of proceedings in his case. Article 13 reads: | 2 |
93. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They further added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and in one instance from the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
23. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in respect of his reinstatement and compensation claims, including their enforcement stage, was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he had no effective domestic remedies for this complaint as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Convention provisions in question provide, insofar as relevant, as follows: | 2 |
88. The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
42. The applicant further complained that she had no effective remedy to complain about the length of administrative proceedings. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her length complaint in the first set of the administrative proceedings, but it found the second set of judicial proceedings too long, despite the fact that the circumstances and the time-frame in both cases were almost identical. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government contested that argument. | 2 |
100. The Government submitted that the first applicant had a possibility to introduce different procedural petitions with the courts hearing her case seeking to expedite its processing. For instance, in case of a failure of the respondent party to appear for hearings it was open for the applicant to ask for examination of the case without its participation or require that the respondent party's representatives be obliged to appear before the court. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of the lack of effective remedies for the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as to the length of the proceedings. | 2 |
29. The applicant complained that his complaint was not examined by the court because of his absence and that his right to defend himself though counsel was breached. He invoked Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) as well as Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the case falls to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention, which in relevant part reads as follows: | 2 |
145. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also claim damages through civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
105. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the investigation into the death of the applicants’ son had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. | 2 |
61. The Government maintained that no separate issue arose under Article <mask> of the Convention and that the applicant had effective domestic remedies which she had failed to exhaust. In particular, the applicant could challenge before the Regional Court any procedural step taken by the first-instance court which in her opinion contributed to the delay in the proceedings. They also referred to the remedies invoked in their preliminary objection. | 2 |
60. The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court has examined a similar objection in several previous cases. Having assessed a number of legal avenues put forward by the Russian Government, as well as remedies employed by applicants, including a civil claim, the Court found that applicants who were detainees did not have effective domestic remedies at their disposal to complain about continuous and ongoing violations of their right to receive adequate medical assistance in detention. That conclusion also led to the Court’s finding of a breach by the Russian Government of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 75-91, 27 November 2012, and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 62-80, 8 January 2013). | 2 |
91. The applicant also complained that the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation capable of providing redress for the ill‑treatment suffered by the applicant constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, he complained that he could not effectively challenge, before a court, the decision not to prosecute taken by the military prosecutor in favour of the police officer who had allegedly injured him. | 2 |
139. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
132. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
324. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants could have made use of their procedural status as victims in the criminal cases. In particular, they had an opportunity to appeal against the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. The Government referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to two cases in 2003 and 2004 in which victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor’s office. | 2 |
223. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from State bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
35. The Government further submitted that, following the delivery of the Court's judgment in the case of Kudła v. Poland (application no. 30210/96, judgment of 26 October 2000), the applicant could have requested, with reference to Article 144 of the Constitution, that the domestic courts should apply the State Liability Act of 1969 in accordance with the requirement of an effective domestic remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court. In the Government's view, in such case the domestic courts would be obliged to compensate the applicant for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the protracted length of the proceedings. | 2 |
12. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 30 July 1999 given in his favour in due time. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedies for his complaint under Article 6 § 1. The impugned provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows: | 2 |
19. The applicant company alleged that the fine imposed on it pursuant to section 134 of Law no. 2004 had constituted a breach of its right of access to a court, since it should be construed as a penalty for having exercised its right to bring a case before the domestic courts. It relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
17. The applicants complained that their handcuffing during the court hearing of 26 January 2007 had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and that they had had no effective means at their disposal to remedy the situation. Both of them relied on Article 3, Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Mr Sabev relied additionally on Article 14. | 2 |
45. The applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities. They also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the determination of their claims. They relied in that connection on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Those provisions read as follows: | 2 |
29. The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that the invalidation of the election results for their constituencies due to the alleged incompatibility of the ConEC records of results with the requirements of the Electoral Code had been arbitrary and unlawful. The Constitutional Court’s decision to invalidate the election results lacked any factual basis, was contrary to the domestic law and breached the principles of a fair trial. In particular, the Constitutional Court’s decision contained no indication as to which specific documents had been examined, what specific requirements of the Electoral Code had not been met and what the specific nature of the shortcomings found in the ConEC records had been. As the Constitutional Court’s decision was final, there was no remedy available in respect of the alleged violation. | 2 |
115. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
127. The Government argued that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. In particular, the applicant had received reasoned replies to all her complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, under Article 125 of the new CCP she could complain to a court about actions or omissions of the investigating authorities. Moreover, it was open to the applicant to file a claim for compensation in civil proceedings. In this respect the Government relied on the case of Khashiyev v. Russia in which the applicant had sought and obtained compensation for the death of his relatives (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2002). | 2 |
58. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of the non‑enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the length of civil proceedings. Lastly, relying on Articles 6, 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that in 1997 he lost his apartment; that the amount awarded to him by the judgment of 23 September 2008 was insufficient and the civil proceedings were unfair. | 2 |
21. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings, instituted first in 1989 and a second time in 1990, had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1. In this connection they also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. It is not clear what matters this allegation concerned other than the length aspect as such. In the view of the Court this matter can most appropriately be considered under Article 6 § 1 which, in so far as is relevant, reads: | 2 |
100. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
57. The Government contended that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as he had failed to raise his complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court. According to the Government, the constitutional complaint had to be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the means by which the Federal Constitutional Court was able to influence the length of pending proceedings, the Government maintained that the mere fact that notice of a constitutional complaint satisfying the admissibility criteria was given to the Federal Government or the government of the Land in which the court in question was situated had the effect of speeding up the proceedings. The same applied for a decision establishing a violation of the Basic Law. Furthermore, the fact that the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions were often published and discussed in the legal press exerted a preventive effect. | 2 |
152. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had challenged the actions of the investigators in court, but had not appealed against the first-instance decision. They could also have complained to higher prosecutors or claimed damages, but failed to do so. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13. | 2 |
105. The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant: | 2 |
66. The applicants submitted, relying on the Court’s findings in Soldatenko (cited above, §§ 82-83), that the domestic legal system did not provide for an effective remedy to prevent or challenge a decision on extradition on the ground of a risk of ill-treatment. They also argued that the Instruction on the procedure of consideration of extradition requests by the prosecution bodies, to which the Government referred in their submissions, had not been published in accordance with the domestic rules and was not accessible to the public for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
74. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 22 May 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, which are lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, § 69 and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports 1997‑III, p. 927, § 73). | 2 |
65. The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her two sons and the unlawfulness of their detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant: | 2 |
31. The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 2 |
19. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 11), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 46-48, 29 June 2004). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision. | 2 |
14. The applicant submitted that he had been tried and convicted by the Diyarbakır State Security Court which was neither independent nor impartial. He further complained that he had been deprived of his right to the assistance of a lawyer in police custody, before the public prosecutor and the judge. In this respect he invoked Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention. | 2 |
119. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. For instance, they could have complained about the investigators’ actions both to higher prosecutors and to the courts. Their access to such remedies had not been restricted. The first applicant had been granted victim status and thus had had all relevant procedural rights. Moreover, he could have lodged civil claims for non-pecuniary damage. The Government referred to several cases concerning the events in the Chechen Republic in which awards for non-pecuniary damage had been made by Russian courts. | 2 |
43. The applicant began his argument with a submission relating to domestic remedies. In particular, he drew the Court’s attention to a number of cases against Russia where it had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in view of a lack of domestic remedies in respect of complaints about the poor conditions of detention. He referred to his complaints to various authorities, including prosecutors, which had not brought about any improvements to his situation. He further maintained his description of the conditions of his detention both in the temporary detention centre and the correctional facility. He argued that the lack of personal space in facility IZ-47/1, his lengthy solitary confinement, and the degrading sanitary conditions in the correctional facility had been in contravention of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. With regard to the issue of his solitary confinement, he stressed that it had only been authorised in view of his life sentence. There had been no other considerations which could have required his detention alone in a cell for almost two years. It had never been argued that he was a danger to himself or other inmates or guards. He had never attempted self-mutilation or escape, or attacked those around him. The authorities had never reconsidered his solitary confinement and whether it could be cancelled. They had never assessed his physical and mental health to determine whether he was fit for solitary confinement. | 2 |
36. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court only in connection with the proceedings on his action of 16 November 1999 (no. 7 Cb 73/99). On the basis of his complaint, the Constitutional Court found a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The fact that the redress obtained at the domestic level was not sufficient for the Convention purposes does not render the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution in the circumstances of the present case incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention (see Šidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006). | 2 |
149. The applicant complained that the response of the authorities to the complaints and petitions about the detention, torture and killing of Kadri Ateş was utterly inadequate. According to the applicant, the necessary remedies either did not exist or they were, in practice, useless. The applicant submitted that there had been a very clear violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides: | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.