Экзамен зачет учебный год 2023 / CASE OF ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV v. RUSSIA

crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights 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.”

114.The Government appear to have contested the applicability of Article 10 in the present case. In any event, they argued, with reference to the Hirst (no. 2) [GC] judgment, that there were no separate issues in the present case under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention.

115.The second applicant submitted that he did not insist on pursuing his complaints under the aforementioned Articles any further.

116.Having regard to the parties’ submissions and to its conclusion under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in paragraph

112above, the Court considers that this part of the application is admissible and that no separate issue arises under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case (see Hirst (no. 2) [GC], cited above, §§ 87 and 89).

III.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

117.The second applicant also complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to receive information had been violated by a public official’s refusal to give him certain documents. He complained under Article 6 of the Convention that there were various irregularities in the court proceedings brought by him.

118.Having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court finds that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention provisions. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

119. 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.Damage

120.The applicants claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 20,000 respectively in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

121.The Government contested the first applicant’s claims under this head. They argued, with reference to the Hirst (no. 2) [GC] judgment, that, should any violation of the first applicant’s rights be found in the present case, the mere finding of a violation would suffice. They did not comment on the second applicant’s relevant claims.

122.Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present case for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants (see Hirst (no. 2) [GC], cited above, §§ 93-94 and Greens and M. T., cited above, § 98).

B.Costs and expenses

123.The applicants did not submit any claims under this head. Accordingly, there is no call to make any award in this respect.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1.Decides to join the proceedings in the applications;

2.Declares the complaints under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention and the complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in so far as it concerned the applicants’ disenfranchisement and their ineligibility to vote in the parliamentary elections held on 7 December

applicant, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

3.Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

4.Holds that no separate issues arise under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention;

5.Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and dismisses the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2013, pursuant to