Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in LOC prior to the events of the case .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery , theft , forgery and extortion .

On DATE the Nizhniy ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by way of supervisory - review proceedings , quashed the judgment DATE and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination . Referring to the gravity of the charges , it also ordered the applicant ’s detention to continue for DATE .

By orders of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE , the authorised period of the applicant ’s detention was extended . These orders cited the gravity of the charges and the possibility of the applicant ’s absconding as the main reasons for the continued detention .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of a number of grave crimes and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of GPE Novgorod . He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

The applicant was married to GPE , with whom he had QUANTITY boys PERSON , who was born in DATE , and Do . J. , who was born in DATE .

In DATE the applicant divorced his wife , but they remained living together and had CARDINAL more boy PERSON , born in DATE .

On DATE PERSON gave birth to twins – a boy , PERSON , and a girl , PERSON

On DATE the applicant ’s former wife and the mother of their CARDINAL children died . Immediately afterwards , ORG , a cousin of the applicant ’s late wife , took the twins to her home to take care of them . As the applicant wrote in his application to the ORG , he had agreed that ORG would take care of the twins because she had experience in raising children – she had CARDINAL children of her own . He also mentioned having started dating GPE and having planned to marry her later . In the applicant ’s words , ORG wanted to get married in church and not to disclose that fact to the ORG authorities so that it would be possible to keep receiving child benefits . The applicant wrote that then , “ seeing such prospects for a bright future , [ he ] had agreed that ORG would become official guardian of the twins and [ he ] had helped her to prepare paperwork for that purpose ” .

On DATE the GPE Children ’s Rights Protection Service ( PERSON teisių apsaugos tarnyba , hereinafter – “ the ORG ” ) decided that ORG could be the temporary guardian of the twins who , in turn , were to reside with her . The applicant took part in the hearing held at the ORG ’s premises and agreed with the decision . He noted that he could barely take care of his CARDINAL other children , who were schoolboys , and was thus unable to raise the babies . He stated that if he had to bring the babies back to his home , he would be forced to quit his job and this would ruin him financially . His job also included working at TIME . If ORG had not agreed to take the twins , he would have given them to a foster home for infants . The applicant agreed to have his parental rights limited should ORG be appointed as the CARDINAL guardian . He also agreed to pay money towards the GPE upbringing .

ORG stated that she did not have a job and agreed to raise the twins .

DATE , on DATE , ORG of GPE decided that ORG should be appointed as the temporary guardian of the twins .

Later on , the ORG applied to ORG , asking it to appoint ORG as the CARDINAL permanent guardian ( nuolatinė globėja ) and manager of their property .

The applicant took part in the court hearing concerning that application and explained that even though he loved all of his children and had been raising the CARDINAL older ones to the best of his abilities , he was not able to take care of the twins because of a lack of money and knowledge of how to take care of very young children . If he had to quit his job in order to bring up the twins , there would be no money to live on . Whilst noting that he was not giving the twins up , the applicant agreed that ORG could be appointed as their guardian . He promised to help the twins financially to the best of his abilities .

On DATE the ORG granted the ORG ’s application and granted permanent guardianship of the twins in favour of ORG , who was also to be manager of their property . The court also made a custody order concerning the twins in ORG ’s favour . The applicant was ordered to pay CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL ) ( DATE ( ORG ) ) per month in financial support for each child , until the children came of age . The court noted that the applicant could not take care of the twins because of his lack of knowledge of how to take care of infants . Yet it observed that the applicant worked and took care of his CARDINAL older children , did not exercise his parental rights improperly , and had no negative influence on the older children . The applicant was also ready to support the twins financially , visit them and communicate with them when they became older . The twins were to be removed from the applicant ’s care , although he would retain his parental rights , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The decision could be appealed against to a higher court . The applicant notes that he did not appeal against the decision .

According to doctors who examined the twins , during DATE of their lives their development of motor skills was slower than normal , and by DATE they had specific mixed development disorder ( specialus mišrus raidos sutrikimas ) , and their language development was delayed . They needed speech therapy , physiotherapy and an undemanding regimen ( tausojantis režimas ) . On DATE , at ORG ’s request and on the basis of reports by psychologists and doctors , the twins received learning support at the Šiauliai Special Upbringing Centre . At the centre the twins received help from a speech therapist and special educational needs teachers ( specialieji pedagogai ) , and benefited from such procedures as massages , medical exercise therapy and herbal baths . Upon the request of ORG , who stated that she was ill herself and had to take care of her elderly mother , from DATE the twins became DATE boarders ( from DATE ) at the Special Upbringing Centre . As the doctors later noted during court proceedings , they made no recommendation either in favour of or against the twins boarding there during DATE . As ORG later specified during court hearings , she had not felt it appropriate for the twins to go to a regular kindergarten , because there were CARDINAL children in CARDINAL class ( grupė ) there , whereas at the Šiauliai Special Upbringing Centre there were CARDINAL children in a class . According to the Government , the children stayed at LOC until DATE . It also appears from the documents before the ORG that in the event of illnesses and during holidays the children were taken home ( for example , in accordance with a doctor ’s recommendation that the children stay at ORG ’s home from DATE for DATE ) .

As of DATE the twins attended DATE pre - school classes at the Šiauliai Special Upbringing Centre . On DATE the director of the centre noted that the twins were always brought to and collected from the centre by ORG on time , they were well - rested , properly dressed , and had all the necessary materials for class with them . The applicant came to visit them at the centre twice . After his visits the children acted normally , although they were more interested in the presents he brought and did not communicate much . In DATE the institution noted that the applicant would come and see the twins at the centre CARDINAL to CARDINAL times a month , teachers were present at the meetings and the ORG behaviour after the meetings was normal .

In DATE disputes arose between the applicant and ORG In DATE ORG complained to the ORG that the applicant had withdrawn money from the ORG bank account , without her knowledge or permission , as the administrator of the twin ’s property . A criminal case for fraud was opened against the applicant . On DATE the applicant was acquitted of that charge the court , having established that he had acted in good faith and in the interests of the twins .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG , asking that the twins be returned to him . He argued that the reasons for his CARDINAL children being removed from his care had ceased to exist . The applicant lived in a CARDINAL - room apartment and , above all , the twins were now older and he therefore felt able to raise them . CARDINAL of his older children , Do . J. and PERSON , were now students . The applicant submitted that it would be in the best interests of all his children to grow up together . He also sought to have the twins summoned and questioned in court .

NORP In response , on DATE ORG lodged an application with the same court , seeking to have the applicant ’s parental rights permanently limited ( as for the outcome of this case , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a ruling of DATE , at ORG ’s request , ORG suspended the examination of the case initiated by the applicant for the FAC custody until the civil case initiated by GPE for termination of his parental rights was decided .

The applicant appealed against that ruling , arguing that a delay in the proceedings was harmful to his interests and , even more so , to those of his minor children . He emphasised that in DATE he had been separated from his children not because of his fault but because of circumstances that were beyond his control – the death of his former wife and the particularly young age of the twins . The applicant also noted that it was he who had addressed LOC first ; only afterwards had ORG initiated another set of court proceedings against him . Taking into account that a case concerning termination of his parental rights could reach the appellate courts , such proceedings could last a very long time , in breach of the requirements of LAW . The delay in court proceedings could also push the twins away from their biological father and thus was detrimental to their interests .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s appeal , on the ground that a delay in the proceedings would be in breach of the DATE best interests . The court also established that the applicant had been the first to open court proceedings concerning the twins’ future residence .

NORP In DATE ORG held a hearing in the case initiated by the applicant regarding the FAC return to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , at which the applicant , ORG , their lawyers and the ORG ’s representative were present . The court considered that an expert report was necessary to establish whether the twins were ready to be returned to the applicant ’s home . The applicant ’s lawyer insisted that , apparently for reasons of impartiality , if experts were to be appointed , those experts should be from GPE , and not from ORG . During another court hearing on DATE the applicant testified that he had not had problems with ORG until DATE when he found out that the twins had attended DATE boarding .

On DATE officials from the ORG visited ORG ’s home and had a conversation with the twins , without ORG being present . The CARDINAL children called ORG “ mummy ” , and the applicant “ daddy ” , and expressed negative feelings towards their father and about being with him in either his or ORG ’s apartments . The child care specialists admitted , however , that the phrases the twins had used did not always correspond to the language used by children of their age . The conversation with the children also clearly showed that there was a dispute between the applicant and ORG The child care specialists thus recommended , in the interests of the children , that the applicant and ORG improve their relationship and strive to ensure that the applicant was able to communicate with his children . The ORG concluded that the twins were not yet ready to live with the applicant .

According to a further report , the child care specialists had also previously visited the applicant ’s apartment in ORG and found that the conditions there were suitable for children .

NORP In reply to a complaint by the applicant , on DATE the PERSON for ORG Rights ( PERSON teisių apsaugos kontrolierius , hereinafter – “ the PERSON ” ) issued a report about his case . The ORG informed the ORG that if the applicant had agreed to raise the twins himself at the time the question of guardianship had been examined , he would have been eligible to receive a DATE payment of around LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) from the ORG in support . However , at that time the applicant had refused to raise the twins , even though he had stated that he intended to do so “ in the future ” , without indicating when , and had only applied to ORG for a residence order in respect of the twins on DATE .

The PERSON noted that the ORG had an obligation to establish which help , in particular , the applicant ’s family would have benefited from , including all the social services and other assistance available . However , in the PERSON ’s view , that had not been done , and the authorities had not taken specific steps to enable the twins to be returned to their biological family .

That being so , the PERSON also observed that since DATE court decision to establish permanent guardianship for the twins , the applicant had never contacted the ORG regarding his communication with the twins until DATE . Neither had he applied to have those CARDINAL children returned to him . Similarly , until DATE the applicant had never claimed that ORG was not taking care of the twins properly . Child care specialists had visited ORG ’s home during DATE and there was no evidence that the children had not been taken care of properly .

Whilst noting the conflict between the applicant and ORG over when and how the applicant could see the twins , the PERSON urged the CARDINAL to act prudently so that their dispute did not affect the children . The ORG was ordered to take steps towards the improvement of the relationship between the applicant and the twins , provided that this was in the children ’s best interests . It was necessary to find a proper balance between the interests of the children , namely , their health and development , and their communication with the applicant . That being so , the ORG ’s finding of CARDINAL DATE that the twins were not yet ready to return to their father ’s home was not unreasonable . It was pertinent that a sudden termination of the guardianship could cause distress , especially when the GPE guardianship had been established at DATE . ORG had become their guardian when they were infants and , according to the information collected , they were very attached to her . Moreover , they had negative feelings towards their father , which , to a certain extent had been caused by the dispute between ORG and the applicant . A transitional period was therefore necessary .

As the dispute between the applicant and ORG escalated , on DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG seeking a formal decision setting up a contact schedule ( dėl bendravimo tvarkos nustatymo ) for him and the twins .

On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings for a contact schedule until the civil case concerning the return of the children to reside with the applicant , wherein a psychological assessment of the children had been ordered by the court , had been concluded ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant also asked the court to issue interim protective measures ( laikinosios apsaugos priemonės ) , so that he could regularly communicate with the twins . The applicant asked to spend DATE in a row with the twins during DATE , see them DATE for TIME each time DATE , and for the twins to stay at his home DATE . The applicant also sought to have his CARDINAL children stay with him TIME during DATE , DATE . ORG partly agreed to the request , but asked that the children not be left with the applicant TIME , because they had health problems and were not used to spending TIME in another home . When questioned , the twins stated that they wanted to have contact with the applicant , but did not want to stay at his place TIME or to go on holiday with him for DATE . The ORG noted that the twins had not lived with the applicant for a long time and considered that , in order to restore their relationship , an adaptation period was necessary . The ORG left the details of the contact order to the court ’s discretion .

On the request of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , experts at the GPE city psychiatric institution ( ORG ir paauglių teismo psichiatrijos skyrius ) examined the twins . Questions were put to the experts by the court , the applicant and ORG

In their report of DATE , the psychiatrists concluded that PERSON had a strong and positive emotional relationship with ORG , with whom he felt safe . The boy also had an emotionally positive relationship with his father , who was an important person for him , but their contact was insufficient . Such a lack of contact could be CARDINAL of the reasons why the boy wanted to live with his father . On this last point the psychiatrists also noted that while the boy was able to freely express his wish to live with his father , he did so without being able to think critically and to foresee the consequences of his choice . The psychiatrists also noted :

“ it was not possible to state or to foresee how the change of living place would affect PERSON ’s further development . However , taking into account the wish which PERSON had expressed to live with his father , it was unlikely that the change would affect the child negatively , or even cause him harm . [ Nonetheless ] , taking into consideration that from his infancy to [ the present ] date ORG had been raising him , it was not recommended to disrupt the relationship between the boy and ORG completely ” .

The experts considered that it was for the court to decide how often the child should have contact with his father so that their emotional relationship could resume .

As regards the girl , PERSON , the psychiatrists concluded that she had an emotionally strong relationship with her guardian , with whom she felt safe . Her relationship with her father was ambivalent , but it had not broken down entirely . Both the applicant and GPE were important people in PERSON ’s life . All things considered , it was not possible to state or to foresee how a change of living place would affect PERSON It was thus for the court to decide how often the child should have contact with her father so that their emotional relationship could resume . The experts also recommended that the applicant and ORG should share the duties of taking care of the children , and ORG should actively cooperate by helping the twins to communicate with their father .

On DATE ORG held that , in order to gradually restore the twins’ emotional connection with their father , contact should be as follows : the applicant could collect the children from ORG ’s home TIME and be with them for CARDINAL - and - a - half hours ; every DATE he could spend CARDINAL - and - a - half hours with them . The court considered that it would only be appropriate for the twins to be with the applicant during school and public holidays once their bonds with him had become stronger . In the court ’s view , such a contact order corresponded to the best interests of the children . The court also noted that , should the circumstances change , the applicant or ORG could ask the court to amend the contact order .

In DATE and upon ORG ’s request , the court amended the contact order to the effect that , should the applicant be unable to see the twins on DATE or DATE due to their sickness or another justifiable reason , he could meet with them on DATE or DATE .

The applicant and his lawyer took part in both court hearings .

On DATE the ORG delivered its decision as to the applicant ’s application for a residence order . The applicant , ORG , their lawyers , and the ORG took part in the hearings before the court . The twins also took part in the hearings , giving evidence without the applicant , ORG or their lawyers being present .

The court noted that on DATE the twins had been removed from the applicant ’s care by a court decision for a legitimate reason DATE namely , because he could not take care of them ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was important to observe that their separation was in no way linked to fault on the part of the applicant . Moreover , the measure was temporary in that it could be lifted if the circumstances justifying the separation from the twins no longer existed . Accordingly , it was necessary to examine whether those circumstances still existed , and , if not , whether the children ’s being returned to live with the applicant would be in their best interests , which were the overriding consideration . The court noted that the best interests of the children , as the primary consideration , were indicated in LAW on the Rights of the LAW and in LAW .

The Šiauliai City District Court agreed with the applicant ’s argument that the grounds for removal of the twins from his care in DATE had ceased to exist , because the twins were now DATE and had been taken from the applicant because he had not possessed the appropriate knowledge of how to take care of them when they were infants . That being so , the court nevertheless held that the twins had a strong emotional link with ORG and their emotional link with the applicant was not sufficient , which situation had clearly been influenced by the fact that the twins had lived separately from the applicant since DATE . The court also observed that because of the dispute over money between the applicant and ORG which had started in DATE , he had had limited opportunities to take part in educating his children and to communicate with them . It was only from DATE , when the court had issued an interim order providing for the applicant ’s contact with the twins in accordance with a fixed schedule , that the applicant had started to have regular contact with the twins . Even so , the applicant had not taken all possible steps to participate in the upbringing of the twins on an equal basis with ORG , even though the twins had been removed from his care in DATE , the applicant had never asked for the twins to be returned to live with him until the disagreement with ORG arose in DATE , even though his CARDINAL other sons were no longer minors as of DATE and DATE respectively . The court also noted the applicant ’s acknowledgement that until DATE he had not encountered any obstacles to communicating with the twins . Yet , he had communicated with them only “ episodically ” , with the result that the emotional connection between the twins and the applicant and his other children was less strong than that existing between the twins and ORG and her children . As the twins had testified in court , they did not want to live with the father . They did not even want to stay at his home during DATE , this being confirmed by the applicant ’s eldest child , GPE

The Šiauliai City District Court also dismissed the applicant ’s argument that ORG had not been taking care of the twins properly because they had been DATE boarders at the Šiauliai Special Upbringing Centre for DATE . On the contrary , the court observed that according to the FAC doctor , the care centre was of great benefit to the family , because the twins received specialist help there . The court found that the applicant ought to have been more active in making inquiries about the FAC development and health . Lastly , the court noted the applicant ’s statement that he had been aware DATE that the twins were DATE boarders at the care centre .

The first - instance court concluded that because of the twins’ negative feelings towards the applicant , he would not be able to perform his fatherly duties properly . The court also took the psychiatrists’ report into account and held that the FAC connection with the applicant was not strong enough , whereas they had a strong emotional connection with ORG It followed that the grounds for removing the twins , who had expressed their wish to live with ORG in court , from the applicant ’s care persisted . Being returned to live with their father was not in the best interests of the children . Nonetheless , the applicant maintained his parental rights , including the right to have contact with his children , who would be well able to communicate with him whilst staying in a familiar environment , with ORG , where they felt safe . Should the circumstances change , that is to say , once the emotional relationship between the twins and the applicant became stronger , the applicant could apply to the courts again and seek the revocation of ORG ’s guardianship of the twins . The court thus dismissed the applicant ’s request that the twins be returned to him .

NORP The applicant appealed , submitting that the first - instance court had erred in establishing that the circumstances on the basis of which the twins had been removed from his care in DATE were no longer valid , but then going on to examine whether there were other reasons why he would not be able to take care of his children properly . He maintained that he had visited his children and communicated with them regularly from the date of their separation . However , as of DATE ORG had started turning the children against him . The court had established that there was a lack of a strong emotional relationship between the applicant and the twins , but had not taken into consideration that ORG had deliberately taken steps to ensure that the children would be hostile to their father .

The applicant also argued that the lower court had erred in establishing that ORG had been taking care of the twins properly . He submitted that ORG had without good reason sent the twins to be boarding pupils at the Šiauliai Special Upbringing Centre . Even though during the hearings at first instance the twins’ family doctor and another doctor had confirmed that the FAC attendance at the centre had been recommended , those specialists had not recommended that the twins board at the centre . The applicant also submitted that until DATE ORG had not had a job and it was thus not unreasonable to conclude that her sole means of subsistence was child benefit payments , although domestic law required such monies to be used exclusively in the interests of children under guardianship .

The applicant also observed that the first - instance court had completely disregarded the PERSON ’s report ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Likewise , the lower court had disregarded the psychiatrists’ reports about the twins ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had clearly stated that the boy wanted to live with the applicant and that there was no reason to believe that the boy ’s well - being would suffer should he be returned to his biological father .

Neither could the applicant agree with the lower court ’s conclusion that he had not taken as much of a role in taking care of the twins as ORG On this point he noted that his participation in the twins’ life had only been restricted as of DATE , when ORG had taken steps to limit his communication with them . It was also noteworthy that in DATE the applicant had applied to the courts for an order establishing a schedule for him to have contact with the twins . Lastly , the applicant maintained that the ORG had from the very beginning and up to the present date , and by unjustified means , sought to further ORG ’s interests and not those of the children .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision , noting that as an appellate court it was free to interpret the evidence as it saw fit . The applicant and ORG took part in the appellate court ’s hearing . The court noted that the case had a public interest element , because it concerned children ’s rights . Accordingly , it examined supplementary evidence of its own motion and took notice of an earlier court decision to dismiss the applicant ’s claim that ORG had been embezzling the ORG money ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It therefore considered that the applicant ’s accusations of selfishness and property mismanagement against ORG were unfounded .

The court considered that both the applicant and ORG had not made enough effort to ensure that “ the twins would return to the family ” . The dispute between the CARDINAL had negatively influenced the twins’ feelings towards their father , and had had a long term negative impact on the GPE emotional and psychological development . The court noted the PERSON conclusion that so far the children had developed a firm , safe and positive emotional connection with ORG Even so , the experts had also acknowledged that the twins’ connection with the applicant still existed and it was emotionally positive . Accordingly , it was crucial to develop that connection , and both the applicant and ORG had to contribute to that development . The assistance of the ORG would also be particularly important .

The court also emphasised that it would necessarily take time for the children to be ready to be returned to their father : the latter and ORG had to make an effort towards that goal . The children were to get used to the fact that they could see their father when they wanted , and not when ORG sent them to visit him . On this point the court noted that children of the DATE already understood and were affected by the fact that their guardian , ORG , was not enthusiastic about them being in contact with the applicant . Equally , as regards the applicant ’s attitude towards the situation , the court considered that the applicant blamed everybody else without seeing any fault on his own part . The panel of judges noted that the applicant was a very uncompromising individual who only accepted the validity of his own viewpoint and was not willing to have regard to the opinions of others . The panel concluded that so long as the applicant was not taking any steps to work on his issues , such as by seeking psychological assistance , the children could not be returned to an emotionally cold and harsh environment . A sudden removal of the children from the environment provided by ORG , which was safe and comforting for the children , would absolutely be a disproportionate and traumatic step which the court could not allow .

The appellate court also noted that from birth the twins had had serious health problems , which had never gone away . In DATE PERSON had been diagnosed with a medium level of disability ; in DATE the disability ’s assessment had been changed to a mild level . ORG had a light level of disability , established in DATE . Both children were hyperactive , had numerous health problems and thus needed a greater level of attention . Accordingly , the applicant ’s argument that the twins could stay at home until he returned from work showed that it would not be possible for him , and he was not ready , to take concrete steps to take care of the CARDINAL children , who came home from school at TIME . The applicant ’s other children were busy to the extent that they also could not stay with the twins all the time .

Lastly , the appellate court dismissed the applicant ’s argument that the children should be returned to him on the basis of Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which , in the applicant ’s view , provided that a child should be returned to a parent once the grounds which necessitated their separation no longer existed . The court held that the best interests of the child were the priority . In the applicant ’s case the appellate court had not established the existence of any new circumstances . Nevertheless , this did not automatically mean that the twins had to be returned to the applicant ’s home immediately . A transitional period was necessary , which , in the court ’s view , might be DATE . In arriving at that timeframe it took into particular account the fact that this period would include DATE , when the twins could leave their familiar environment , ORG ’s apartment , and re - establish a close relationship with their father . If the twins could have contact with their father for a longer period than the current sporadic , twice - a - week arrangement , they would be able to see that their father was there for them and that they could resolve everyday problems with their father ’s assistance .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , but on CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to examine it on the basis that it raised questions of fact only .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to resume the suspended civil proceedings regarding his contact rights with the twins , noting that the other civil case concerning his application for the FAC return had already ended ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . DATE the court resumed the examination of the civil case concerning his application for a contact order , and with the aim that the case be examined expeditiously , set an oral hearing in that case for DATE . In DATE the court also decided to join the CARDINAL civil cases pending in relation to the twins ( the civil case concerning the application for a parental contact order initiated by the applicant on DATE and the civil case concerning the application for termination of the applicant ’s parental rights initiated by ORG on DATE ; see , respectively , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

During the hearing of the joined civil case on DATE a psychologist was present , the children were questioned ( the applicant and ORG were asked to leave the courtroom , their lawyers were present ) and the psychologist made the following comments :

“ ... From the statements made by PERSON we understand that the relationship between GPE and her father is difficult and that the child sees and understands this . The girl mentioned a wish to meet [ go out ] with both of them if their relationship was better . I did not note entirely negative feelings towards her father , however there is no close relationship , and the relationship between the girl and ORG is very strong . I understood from both of the children that their father promises things which never come true [ and ] this fell short of their expectations . PERSON states that he is willing to have contact with his father but only when he [ the boy ] so wishes , hence the child should not be forced to contact his father . ... The girl has no emotional relationship with her father , because she has seen him disputing [ things ] and [ experienced him making ] promises which never came true . The boy wishes to have contact with his father but at the present date the latter can not arrange that . < ... > ”

On DATE the Šiauliai City District Court rejected ORG ’s civil claim for termination of the applicant ’s parental rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and partly granted the applicant ’s civil claim for a contact order . The court noted that there was no basis for ORG ’s claims that the applicant had harmed the twins or had not taken care of them at all until DATE . On the contrary , the evidence showed that he had been seeking contact with the children . The boy wanted to have contact with the applicant , and the girl would agree to have contact with him if he ceased his dispute with ORG However , the twins’ contact with the applicant could not be forced . Whilst observing that the child ’s best interests were paramount , the first - instance court also relied on the ORG ’s case - law , noting that in matters of child custody , for example , the reason for considering the “ child ’s best interests ” may be twofold : firstly , to guarantee that the child develops in a sound environment and that a parent can not take measures that would harm its health and development ; secondly , to maintain its ties with its family , except in cases where the family has proved particularly unfit , since severing those ties means cutting a child off from its roots ( the court referred to ORG and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) . Lastly , the court rejected all the accusations by ORG that the applicant had been antagonistic , because a criminal case initiated by her had been dismissed by the authorities ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . The applicant thus had a right to have contact with the twins and an inherent duty to take part in educating them . He was also able to offer them appropriate living conditions .

The Šiauliai City District Court also noted that both parties to the dispute – the applicant and ORG – had put their own ambitions and their subjective views as to what would be best for the children first . For that reason , the applicant had sometimes tried to have contact with his daughter when she did not want to spend time with him , although his son was prepared to meet him . As for ORG , she had not attempted to restore the CARDINAL relations with their father and had showed no concern for the fact that the applicant ’s and his daughter ’s relationship was getting weaker and was close to breaking down . Accordingly , the parties’ failure to take care of the children ’s best interests required that those interests be protected by the courts . Moreover , considering that the biggest issue was the communication between the applicant and his daughter , the court saw it appropriate to set , on its own initiative , a further schedule for their communication during the transitional period , so that the girl ’s contact with the applicant be re - established . In particular , a psychologist or child care specialist was to assist the applicant and his daughter , during contact sessions which would take place in a neutral setting . Lastly , the court reiterated that the principle of the rights of the child having priority was relevant not only when setting a schedule for the contact between the applicant and the twins , but also when executing the court decision establishing that schedule . The applicant thus should not make use of his right to see the children , including taking them to his apartment , if this would breach the LOC rights , even though his right to see them had been established in the court ’s decision .

The order establishing a contact schedule between the applicant and his CARDINAL children essentially specified that , until a psychologist determined the readiness of GPE to have contact with her father without the presence of a psychologist or a social worker , the applicant should have contact with her once a week in the presence of either a psychologist or a social worker and at a place and time agreed upon in advance . In addition to that , if the twins so agreed , the applicant could see them CARDINAL or CARDINAL times a week , for TIME , during DATE . He could also have them over DATE from TIME to DATE TIME , and also during some of the State holidays and spend with them DATE during his vacations .

I.N. appealed against the decision , seeking to have the applicant ’s application for a contact order rejected and her application to have his parental rights terminated granted . The applicant submitted a response to the appeal , submitting that the decision of the first - instance court had been reasoned and lawful and thus that there were no legal grounds for quashing or changing it . He also claimed that ORG was influencing the children ’s testimony .

On DATE the ORG fully upheld the lower court ’s decision to reject ORG ’s application to have the applicant ’s parental rights terminated . In any event , the applicant ’s parental rights could only be terminated if he failed to perform his fatherly duties , and there were no indications of this in his case . That being so , the appellate court also noted that at the time of the first - instance proceedings the twins had expressed a categorical and consistent wish not to stay at the applicant ’s apartment TIME . In addition , according to the most recent reports by the doctors , the twins had become more nervous and agitated , and their emotional and psychological state and behaviour had become worse . It was therefore considered better for them to reside at ORG ’s home . The psychologist had testified that the boy wanted to see his father , but on a schedule of his choosing . The girl avoided meeting with her father at all .

As concerns the issue of the parental contact order , the appellate court stated as follows :

“ ... The panel of judges notes that it is impossible to raise a child without having contact with him / her . In LAW on ORG it is also established that if a child ’s mother or father does not live with him / her , [ the child ] must have the opportunity to spend time with [ his or her ] mother or father , save for the exceptions established by law , [ in the event that ] such contact could prove to be of detriment to the child . Minimum contact may be established only if permanent maximum contact would be harmful to the interests of the child , if frequently spending time with the [ non - resident ] parent would traumatise the child psychologically , if the contact and parenting ( auklėjimas ) [ offered ] by a parent does not satisfy the interests , wishes and views of the child at all , [ or ] if [ there would be ] a negative impact on the child ’s maturity and outlook [ on life ] .

The evidence in the [ instant ] case allows the panel of judges to hold that at present there are grounds for changing the maximum parental contact order established by the [ lower ] court to a minimum [ contact order ] . The court has had regard to the current categorical and consistent position of the children towards the opportunity to stay TIME with their father as envisaged in the [ lower court ’s ] parental contact order . The medical certificates included in the case file allow the court to state that the children ’s state of health , anxiety , and irritability strengthened , their emotional state and behaviour worsened , hence treatment at home is recommended for them . The medical documents recording the existence [ of ] weakness of the central nervous system , attention - deficit disorder , [ delayed ] language development , learning [ difficulties ] , etc . were neither refuted during the examination of the case before the court of the first instance , nor during the examination on appeal . While commenting on the children ’s feelings towards their father the psychologist has noted that there is not currently a close relationship between the father and the children , the son [ D.J. ] states that he only wants to have contact with his father when he [ D.J. ] so wishes , the daughter [ PERSON ] is avoiding contact with her father . The twins [ PERSON ] and [ PERSON ] were examined in terms of their psychological state , heightened fear of separation from their guardian , and feelings of insecurity . While stating that the major problem is the daughter ’s [ PERSON ’s ] communication with her father , the court of first instance correctly emphasised the need [ for it ] to establish additional conditions for contact between the girl and her father , hence it justly noted that the father ’s contact with his daughter was essential to restore a normal relationship with his daughter . A transitional period had to be established given that [ it would take ] a reasonable period of time for the child to become accustomed to [ spending time ] her father .

Accordingly , the [ lower ] court ’s conclusion in the present case that it is not currently possible for the father to have maximum contact with his minor daughter [ PERSON ] is correct , because it is indisputably established in the case that any ties , including emotional ones , between father and daughter have almost broken down . The panel of judges also considers that contact with the [ applicant ’s ] son [ PERSON ] contrary to his wishes ( involuntarily ) would not satisfy the interests of the child . In view of the aim of reinstating the lost connection , forced ( involuntary ) contact [ on the part of ] the children with their father would be meaningless because forced contact [ sessions ] may even result in intense hostility towards their father . Hence , on the basis of the arguments presented the existing order should be changed by removing the possibility for the children to stay at their father ’s home TIME . Being active in such category of cases the court draws attention to the existing contact order [ which provides for ] contact sessions during DATE [ for ] TIME . The panel of judges considers that such frequent contact may unbalance the children ’s rest periods and in the present case a transitional period is required for rebuilding of the relationship . Hence the panel of judges decides that voluntary contact between the children and [ the applicant ] on DATE and on holidays would contribute to a proper balancing of the father ’s and the children ’s interests . Thus the panel decides that the time for collecting and returning the children on DATE and on holidays , with the exception of the father ’s and daughter ’s contact sessions in the presence of the appointed specialist once DATE , should be changed . The court considers that the children may be taken by their father on DATE from TIME until TIME because TIME are optimal - the children ’s rest periods during DATE and on DATE will not be disrupted . Accordingly , the [ relevant ] part of the [ lower court ’s ] decision on the contact order should be changed . Moreover , the panel considers that in view of the transitional period it has emphasised [ will be necessary ] for the building of relations with their father , the issue of the children spending their holidays with their father has been decided far too early , hence this part of the [ lower court ’s ] decision is to be quashed . The appeal court notes that the [ legal ] relations [ established by ] a contact order concerning a child and [ by ] raising a child are of a continuing nature , hence when the factual circumstances change the father of the children [ the applicant ] or the guardian [ ORG ] have the right to apply to the court seeking a change to the existing order .

there are ongoing disputes between the father and the guardian of his children . The panel of judges emphasises that the parties to the case [ have been putting ] their own ambitions above those of the children and thus [ have ] failed to show due loyalty , respect , and tolerance towards each other . Accordingly , the [ applicant ’s ] contact with the children is marked by unnecessary conflict , the children experience and feel it , [ the ongoing disputes ] make them feel insecure , cause severe damage and have had an impact on [ D.J. ’s ] and [ PERSON ’s ] health and impeded the rebuilding of their relationship with their biological father .

In the panel ’s view restriction of contact between the father and the children would undoubtedly infringe both the non - resident ( skyrium gyvenantis ) parent ’s right to take part in educating the children and the children ’s best interests . [ It ] would impede the rebuilding , steadying and maintenance of the relationship between father and son , and especially [ between father and ] daughter . It should be explained to the parties that all issues relating to the raising of the children , as well as issues relating to their needs and interests not included in the order ... established by the procedural decision of the court , should be agreed upon between the parties with due regard to the principles of cooperation and safeguarding the children ’s rights and legitimate interests as a priority . ”

The amended contact order thus confirmed the transitional period for the applicant ’s and his daughter ’s communication in the presence of a psychologist and a social worker . Upon a determination by a psychologist of PERSON ’s readiness to have contact with her father , the applicant also could see the twins ( or one of them ) on DATE from TIME until TIME if the children voluntarily so agreed and did not object . He could also see them on Father ’s Day and on his birthday , from TIME Lastly , the applicant could take them from their permanent place of residence and have contact from TIME on DATE , from TIME on DATE and from TIME on DATE of GPE in even calendar DATE ; and from TIME on DATE and from TIME on DATE of LOC in DATE .

The decision of ORG became effective after neither of the parties to the proceedings lodged a further appeal .

According to the documents in the ORG ’s possession , DATE and DATE specialists from the ORG had frequent meetings and consultations with the applicant and ORG , and individual conversations with the twins ( without the presence of their father and/or ORG ) . The child care specialists urged the applicant and ORG to get in touch with the psychologists involved in the case in order to arrange sessions individually and together with the twins concerning their communication problems .

NORP In particular , on DATE the applicant contacted the ORG asking for assistance in arranging contact sessions with his daughter PERSON , claiming that she had been turned against him by ORG and hence did not want to have contact with him .

On DATE child care specialists had a conversation with ORG LOC . ORG was not present during the conversation . The specialists sought to ascertain the girl ’s opinion concerning her contact with the applicant . The girl expressed negative feelings towards contact with her father and towards staying at his home , his visits to ORG ’s home and going out with her father to other places ( such as the cinema , a café , or shopping centres ) . The girl stated that at that time she was not willing to have contact with her father under any circumstances . She also stressed that nobody was influencing her and that she was expressing her own opinion . The specialists concluded that given the need to safeguard the child ’s best interests as a priority and the recommendations of ORG ( in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) it was advisable that the applicant and ORG did not resolve any disputes that might arise in the presence of the children . The specialists also advised that the applicant and ORG improve their relationship and contact the psychologists to set up consultations and obtain recommendations .

Immediately after the ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) , the applicant contacted the ORG asking for assistance in arranging contact sessions with his daughter PERSON , which were to take place in the presence of a child care specialist and a psychologist . The authority responded DATE , and a session took place on DATE . The applicant and ORG were both present . It was decided that individual sessions with the psychologist would be provided for PERSON It was also agreed that the applicant and the guardian would be invited to discussions giving a general summary of PERSON ’s sessions with the psychologist . A specialist from the ORG would also be invited to the discussions .

CARDINAL sessions with the psychologist were provided from DATE until DATE . During the last session , earlier sessions were discussed and conclusions concerning PERSON ’s readiness to have contact with her father were made . The applicant , ORG and a child care specialist were present at the consultation . The psychologist emphasised that PERSON was not yet ready for contact with her father and refused to have that contact . The psychologist also drew attention to the fact that during individual sessions PERSON had become tired quickly , her anxiety and motor activity had increased , and she had sought to finish every session earlier . ORG confirmed that PERSON was anxious and quickly became tired . The applicant considered that “ in order to spare [ his ] daughter ’s emotional and psychological state individual sessions should be terminated ” .

On DATE specialists from the ORG visited the twins . The specialists concluded that the children enjoyed suitable living conditions that were conducive to their development , and noted that they were very affectionate towards ORG They observed that PERSON enjoyed spending time with the guardian ’s daughter , whom she called “ sister ” , but refused to have contact with her father . PERSON did not have contact with her older biological brothers .

The child care specialists noted that PERSON spoke of ORG only positively . He also had contact with his father during the times set in the court order DATE they would go to the shopping mall , cinema , and his father ’s apartment . He would also spend time with his older biological brother , PERSON was willing to continue having contact with his father .

In their observations on the admissibility and merits sent to ORG on DATE the Government noted that the ORG next planned to visit the twins DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ordered a socially - owned company , Holding - PERSON AD PERSON ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) , to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of compensation for expropriated real estate plus the costs of the civil proceedings .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs .

On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the applicant ’s debtor . As a consequence , the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor would appear to have been stayed .

On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . The applicant duly reported her claims based on the above - mentioned judgment to the insolvency administration .

The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing and the said court judgment remains unenforced to the present day .

According to publically available information the debtor is still , predominantly comprised of socially - owned capital ( see ORG , accessed on DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . In terms of redress , relying on LAW DATE , the applicant sought , inter alia , compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage suffered due to the impugned non - enforcement .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant noted the adoption of the amendments to LAW , and specified her compensation claims accordingly . Specifically , on account of the pecuniary damage , the applicant requested the respective amounts awarded to her by the final judgment in question , whilst as regards the nonpecuniary damage sustained she claimed MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE ORG found , in the operative part of its ruling ( u izreci ) , that the applicant had indeed suffered a violation of her right to a fair trial within a reasonable time , as well as a violation of her property rights and awarded her ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of the non - pecuniary damage in question . However , it rejected the compensation claim regarding the pecuniary damages sought by the applicant . ORG , lastly , ordered the speeding up of the impugned enforcement proceedings .

In its reasoning , ORG stated in respect of the compensation issue that the applicant ’s pecuniary damage claim had been lodged out of time . In so doing , it merely referred to LAW , as amended in DATE , requiring that such claims be brought simultaneously with the lodging of a constitutional appeal .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of drugs under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . Those operations led to their criminal conviction for drug dealing .

The applicants disagreed with their conviction and argued that the police had incited them to commit drug - related offences .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in a prison in GPE .

The applicant was a founder of the private ORG and of ORG . He was also the chairman of the bank ’s supervisory board .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under LAW ( tax evasion ) by ORG in connection with the activities of ORG .

The applicant responded to the investigator ’s calls to testify as a witness within the framework of the above - mentioned criminal proceedings and participated in various investigative steps .

NORP In particular , on DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator and on DATE a confrontation was carried out between the applicant and another witness .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was again requested to attend to assist with the investigation ; however he failed to comply with the request .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant voluntarily appeared before the investigating authorities and CARDINAL confrontations were conducted by the investigator between the applicant and CARDINAL other persons .

In DATE , the investigator tried to contact the applicant , but he could not determine his whereabouts .

On DATE the investigator ordered the applicant ’s compulsory participation in the investigation .

On DATE the applicant appeared before the investigating authority . On DATE the investigator in charge of the case informed the applicant that he was charged under LAW ( fraud ) , CARDINAL ( embezzlement ) and CARDINAL ( forgery by an official ) of LAW . The charges against the applicant were based on the results of a financial audit carried out in respect of ORG , and on the statements of various persons with whom the applicant had business relationships within the framework of his activities at ORG and ORG .

Again on DATE , the prosecutor requested the judge to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody ( həbs qətimkan tədbiri ) in respect of the applicant . The prosecutor gave as the reasons for requesting that measure the seriousness of the applicant ’s alleged criminal acts and the possibility of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation .

At the hearing before the court , the applicant and his lawyer submitted that the applicant had never absconded from or obstructed the investigation . They also submitted that the applicant ’s failure to comply with some of the requests to assist with the investigation had been due to his state of health , because he had been sick at the time .

On DATE the judge , relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ’s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody , ordered the applicant ’s detention for a period of DATE . The judge reasoned the necessity for this measure as follows :

“ Taking into account that PERSON has committed a serious crime , the possibility of his absconding from the investigation and illegally influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings , obstructing the normal functioning of the investigation by hiding or falsification of the items necessary for the prosecution , and that there are sufficient grounds [ that he might ] fail to comply with calls to attend the investigation without any good reason , or flee from criminal responsibility by other means , ... the preventive measure of remand in custody should be applied in respect of PERSON . ”

The applicant appealed against ORG decision of DATE , complaining of a lack of evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and lack of justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody . He noted , in particular , that he had always collaborated with the investigating authority before his arrest and that the court had not taken into consideration his family status , state of health or other personal circumstances . The applicant also noted that it would be impossible for him to hide or falsify any document relating to the case , because all the relevant documents had been taken from his office by the investigating authority .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the detention order was justified . The relevant part of the court ’s decision reads as follows :

“ After having examined the arguments of the appeal , heard the lawyer ’s submissions in support of the appeal and the prosecutor ’s submissions against it , the panel of the court considers that the court ’s decision of DATE should remain unchanged as it is lawful and justified ” .

On DATE , the investigator requested from the Deputy Prosecutor General an extension of the applicant ’s detention , because although a number of statements had been obtained and a financial audit of ORG had been conducted by ORG and ORG , more time was needed to complete the investigation .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General submitted a request to the court for the extension of the applicant ’s detention period until DATE . The relevant part of the prosecutor ’s request reads as follows :

“ The records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained , depending on the conclusions of the audit , certain witnesses must be questioned , confrontations must be conducted , if necessary , accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out , relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused , PERSON must be charged with additional offences in connection with the above - mentioned points , and following the end of these investigative actions , it must be determined which other persons in the circle have committed crimes , and the issue of their responsibility must be decided .

In order to carry out the said investigative actions , DATE are needed . However , the period of remand in custody in respect of the accused person PERSON ends on DATE . Thus , because of the complexity of the criminal case and the need for DATE for the carrying out of the above - mentioned investigative actions , the period of remand in custody in respect of ORG must be extended until DATE . ”

On DATE the judge at ORG , relying on the prosecutor ’s request , extended the length of the applicant ’s remand in custody by DATE , until DATE . The court decision , which is almost identical in wording to the prosecutor ’s request , reasoned the necessity for the extension of the applicant ’s detention as follows :

“ The records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained , certain witnesses , depending on the conclusions of the audit , must be questioned , confrontations must be conducted , if necessary , accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out , relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused , PERSON must be charged with additional offences in connection with the above - mentioned points , and following the end of these investigative actions , it must be determined which other persons in the circle have committed crimes , and the issue of their responsibility must be decided .

The period of remand in custody in respect of PERSON ... ends on DATE . However , as it will not have been possible to complete the additional investigative actions during this period , I consider that the request must be granted and the period of remand in custody in respect of ORG must be extended for DATE , that is , until DATE . ”

The hearing of DATE on the extension of the detention period was held in the applicant ’s absence , but in the presence of the investigator . According to the record of the hearing , the applicant was represented by his lawyer ( PERSON ) and the latter took the floor and stated that he had no objections to the extension of the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE , when the record of ORG hearing of DATE was made available to ORG , he made written comments on the record , stating that false information was included in it , as he had not participated in that hearing and had not pronounced in favour of the extension of the applicant ’s detention . On DATE he lodged a request with the judge of ORG for the rectification of the record of the hearing of DATE . He submitted , in particular , that he had not been informed of the date and place of that hearing and that he had not participated in it . He argued that the record of the hearing had been falsified .

NORP Moreover , it appears from the transcripts of phone conversations of DATE between PERSON and a court clerk , between PERSON and the investigator in charge of the case , and between PERSON and ORG judge who ordered the extension of the applicant ’s detention , that ORG did not participate in the hearing , as all the above - mentioned persons confirmed it in their phone conversation with PERSON In particular , although the judge acknowledged in the phone conversation that there had been a mistake in the record of the hearing concerning the lawyer ’s presence at the hearing , in the same conversation he also refused to officially rectify the record .

By a decision of DATE , the same ORG judge rejected PERSON ’s rectification request , holding that the lawyer had participated in the hearing of DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of DATE concerning the extension of his detention . The applicant complained that he had not been taken to the court for the hearing and that his lawyer had not been informed of the date and place of the hearing . He further submitted that there was no justification for the extension of his detention period and that the first - instance court had failed to substantiate its decision . On DATE he lodged additional submissions in support of his appeal , reiterating his previous complaints and asking the court to deliver a special ruling with regard to the judge of ORG in connection with the falsification of the record of the hearing of DATE .

On DATE ORG left unchanged ORG decision on the extension of the detention period , finding no reason for quashing it . As to the justification for the extension of the applicant ’s detention , the appellate court stated as follows :

“ The investigating authority considers it necessary that the records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained , some witnesses , depending on the conclusions of the audit , must be questioned , confrontations must be conducted , if necessary , accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out , relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused , PERSON must be charged with additional offences in connection with the above - mentioned points , and following the end of these investigative actions , it must be determined which other persons in the circle have committed crimes , and the issue of their responsibility must be decided .

At the stage of the carrying out of the said procedural actions , it is not appropriate to release PERSON from pre - trial detention .

The panel of the court considers that the judge of the first - instance court took into account the seriousness of the crime attributed to ORG , the possibility of him influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings if released , as well as obstructing the normal functioning of the investigation or the court proceedings by hiding or falsification of items necessary for the prosecution , and correctly extended the period of his detention . The decision is lawful and justified . ”

The appellate court did not examine the applicant ’s specific complaints concerning his and his lawyer ’s absence from the hearing of DATE or the alleged falsification of the record of the above - mentioned hearing .

The hearing of DATE before ORG was held in the absence of the applicant , but in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant ’s CARDINAL lawyers .

On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case filed the indictment with ORG . It appears from the indictment that the applicant had been charged with additional offences on DATE and that in the meantime his period of detention had been extended by ORG until DATE . The relevant part of the indictment reads as follows :

“ ... on DATE PERSON was charged under Articles DATE . , CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE and ORG ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him . On DATE he was charged with new criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . His period of pre - trial detention was extended by ORG decision until DATE ... ”

However , despite an explicit request by ORG that the ORG submit all the judicial decisions concerning the applicant ’s detention , no copy of the decision extending his detention until DATE , nor any other copy related to his detention until DATE , was submitted .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of fraud , embezzlement and tax evasion and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .


CASE OF MAGOMETKHOZHIYEV AND AMALAYEV v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants complained of a breach of their property rights through the actions of NORP military forces in GPE in DATE and the failure of the competent domestic authorities to provide them with effective remedies in respect of those breaches .

The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The application was lodged on DATE by Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr D. Itslayev , a lawyer practising in ORG .

The applicant lived at CARDINAL FAC , ORG . At CARDINAL a.m. on DATE a group of military servicemen arrived at the house . The servicemen drove CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) , and an NORP lorry with the registration number M CARDINAL CARDINAL . The group ’s commander introduced himself to the applicant as Major PERSON . They seized the applicant ’s GPE petrol lorry , which was stationed in the courtyard . They did not show any documents or give any explanation in respect of the seizure to the applicant , except to tell him that they had been instructed by their commanders to do so .

The applicant followed the servicemen who drove his lorry away . They entered the compound of a military unit known as QUANTITY , in the south - western outskirts of ORG .

On DATE the applicant was allowed by a soldier to enter the compound and he saw his vehicle there . The applicant states that he saw many other vehicles stationed there ; some had parts missing .

DATE a serviceman told the applicant that his vehicle had been transported to a military unit in GPE , GPE .

The applicant stated that he had reported the seizure of the vehicle to the authorities immediately , but submitted no documents in this respect .

On DATE the applicant informed the military prosecutor of GPE of the unlawful seizure of his lorry and asked him to intervene .

On DATE an investigator of ORG district prosecutor ’s office ( hereinafter “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) asked ORG to inform him of the current location of Major Iv . , who was no longer stationed in GPE .

In DATE and DATE ORG replied to the investigator that ORG serviceman by the name of ORG . had been serving in ORG at the time in question .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL into the alleged robbery . The decision by which the criminal investigation file was opened stated that in DATE a group of unidentified armed persons had , having threatened the applicant with firearms , taken his lorry from his house .

After a subsequent exchange of letters between the district prosecutor ’s office and ORG and ORG , it proved impossible to identify the military unit in question . On this basis , in DATE the military prosecutor ’s office refused to take possession of the file .

Officials of ORG denied that the ORG lorry with the registration and identification numbers indicated by the applicant had been registered with any of their units . This was affirmed by ORG of ORG property .

Certain documents indicated that the servicemen identified by the applicant as belonging to “ DON-CARDINAL ” had served in military unit no . CARDINAL of the internal troops of ORG , which was permanently based in GPE .

At some point the applicant was granted victim status and information about the vehicle was entered in the national register of missing and stolen vehicles .

The applicant on numerous occasions complained to various bodies , including the civilian and military prosecutor ’s offices , and the military and civilian authorities both in GPE and at the federal level .

The investigation was adjourned and reopened on several occasions but failed to identify the perpetrators , to find or question anyone from the military unit in question , or to locate the vehicle .

The applicant lodged a claim for compensation against ORG . On DATE ORG refused to consider the claim on the merits . The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG of GPE quashed that decision and remitted it to ORG for fresh examination .

In the meantime , the applicant applied to ORG , requesting that it confirm his ownership of the vehicle in question . The applicant submitted that the vehicle and relevant documents had been taken from him by unidentified servicemen of ORG . The GPE traffic police were unable to issue any documents since their archives had burned down in DATE , but a police inspector from ORG confirmed that the applicant had had the vehicle in his possession . CARDINAL witnesses confirmed that the applicant had owned the vehicle . On the strength of the above , on DATE ORG confirmed the applicant ’s ownership of the vehicle in question .

By a decision dated DATE ORG transferred the applicant ’s claim for damages to ORG of GPE , the city in which ORG was situated . The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

On DATE the Urus - Martan Town Court considered the substance of the case and concluded that the evidence submitted by the applicant and adduced during the pending criminal investigation had failed to establish conclusively the implication of ORG agents in the crime .

The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE and again remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

The applicant lodged a claim seeking compensation for the cost of the lorry ( which he estimated at MONEY ( RUB ) ) and lost income , together with compensation for non - pecuniary damage . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim , referring to the absence of conclusive proof that ORG servicemen had seized the vehicle . On DATE ORG upheld that ruling , referring to the fact that the criminal investigation remained pending .

In TIME of DATE the applicant , his wife and aunt travelled in the applicant ’s KAMAZ CARDINAL lorry from the village of GPE to the Chiri - Yurt district of GPE , GPE . At TIME the applicant ’s lorry got stuck on the road , not far from a security roadblock . The applicant tried to seek help from the passing drivers , but they were either unable to tow the lorry or did n’t want to stop , in view of the approaching curfew .

An armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) , with the hull number CARDINAL , belonging to military unit no . CARDINAL was passing by , and the applicant signalled to it by flashing his headlights . The ORG stopped within QUANTITY of the applicant ’s lorry . Several servicemen got out but did not approach the lorry . Soon afterwards the applicant ’s lorry was shot at from the direction of the ORG ; the applicant , his wife and his aunt escaped unhurt and ran to PERSON .

In TIME on DATE the applicant went to the lorry and found it burnt out and looking as though it had suffered from an explosion . The applicant immediately informed the local police , the head of the local administration of PERSON and the local military commander ’s office .

On DATE the applicant drew up a description of the destroyed lorry , which was co - signed by CARDINAL traffic police officers from PERSON . The description concluded that the lorry had been “ blown up and burned during curfew hours not far from the roadblock manned by the [ servicemen of the ] CARDINALth motorised rifle regiment ” . The applicant submitted a copy of this document to the ORG , with some handwritten corrections .

On DATE a senior inspector of the state traffic police of the ORG district department of the interior ( ORG района Чеченской PERSON ) concluded that the applicant ’s PERSON lorry had been destroyed by fire as a result of being fired at and could not be repaired .

In a decision dated DATE , the ORG district prosecutor ’s office stated that it would not open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s allegations . It concluded that the applicant had left his lorry on the road and that the car had been destroyed by fire as a result of an electrical short circuit . In DATE the applicant lodged a number of complaints against that decision .

On DATE ORG opened a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s allegations that his KAMAZ lorry had been shot at and been destroyed by fire by unidentified servicemen driving ORG no . CARDINAL . The investigation was adjourned on several occasions .

In DATE the applicant , his wife and aunt were granted victim status . The value of the lorry was put by the applicant at RUB CARDINAL . It does not appear that the investigation progressed beyond the facts communicated by the applicant .

On DATE the ORG refused to consider the applicant ’s complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation , since on CARDINAL DATE the latest decision to adjourn the investigation had been quashed . On DATE ORG of GPE confirmed this decision .

On DATE the applicant was , once again , informed that the investigation had been adjourned .

The applicant lodged a claim , seeking to recover the cost of the lorry directly from the military unit . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG of GPE quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to ORG . ORG pointed out that the case - file material in respect of the pending criminal case , the applicant ’s submissions and the evidence produced all pointed to ORG as the possible tortfeasor . It considered that ORG had failed to elucidate the circumstances of the events in question and to inform ORG of the hearing of DATE .

NORP The case was then transferred to GPE , where ORG headquarters is located . On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It pointed out that the circumstances of the events in question were the subject of pending criminal proceedings and that “ military unit no . CARDINAL ” did not exist , according to ORG . It is not clear if the applicant appealed .

It appears that in DATE the applicant left GPE and , via GPE , moved to GPE .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE .

On DATE the applicants and their friend PERSON were indicted for allegedly having stolen a wine press ( presu za grožđe ) .

On DATE ORG acquitted all CARDINAL defendants of these charges . In so doing , it explained that while there was evidence that they had been in possession of a press , there was nothing to suggest that they had obtained it through any criminal activity . The applicants themselves maintained that they had found the press abandoned , while PERSON denied the charge and thereafter exercised his right to remain silent . No material evidence was introduced during the trial and , apart from the statement by the alleged victim ‒ who maintained that the press worked and had been kept in a locked yard ‒ the statements of CARDINAL witnesses supported the applicants’ defence .

On DATE the prosecution lodged an appeal against this judgment , emphasising , in particular , that the first - instance court had failed to take into account a statement given to the police by PERSON on DATE ( albeit in the absence of the applicants and their counsel , who had not been invited to attend ) .

On DATE the GPE ORG quashed the impugned judgment and ordered a retrial . The court explained that the statement referred to by the prosecution was particularly important because on this occasion PERSON had confessed ‒ in the presence of his counsel ‒ that he had stolen the press together with the applicants . PERSON had subsequently revoked this confession claiming that it had been given under the influence of alcohol and then refused to answer any further questions , and all of these circumstances needed to be reconsidered by ORG , even though the prosecution itself had initially failed to request that ORG statement of DATE be admitted as evidence . The court found this failure by ORG to be “ unclear and inexplicable ” .

On DATE PERSON died and on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG , having held a hearing and read out PERSON ’s statement of DATE before the parties , found the applicants guilty . The first applicant was sentenced to an effective prison term of DATE while the second applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE . In its reasoning the court primarily relied on ORG statement of DATE . No evidence different from that admitted during the first trial was introduced during the retrial .

NORP On DATE ORG upheld this judgment on appeal , and on DATE ORG rejected the ORG further appeal on points of law ( zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude ) .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG , alleging that their conviction had been based on the testimony of a person whom they had never had a chance to cross - examine and who had , in any event , revoked it subsequently .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeal as manifestly ill - founded , adding that ‒ as a consequence of the death of PERSON the lower courts had had no choice but to accept his prior statement given to the police and , clearly , could no longer accommodate the applicants’ objection regarding his cross - examination .


CASE OF B.K.M. LOJISTIK TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI v. SLOVENIA

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant company ORG Lojistik PERSON has its registered office in GPE .

On DATE customs officers stopped and checked the applicant company ’s lorry , in which they found packages of unknown content . A preliminary test of the content revealed that the packages contained heroin . The customs officers informed the police accordingly .

On DATE the police inspected the lorry and its trailer and found QUANTITY of heroin . The driver , a NORP citizen , was arrested and detained . The lorry was seized and the trailer and its goods became the object of a customs procedure . On an unspecified date the applicant company received documents enabling the goods contained in the trailer to be delivered to their destination . The trailer was returned to the applicant company . Subsequently , the police filed a criminal complaint against the driver with the Ptuj ORG .

On DATE the Ptuj ORG charged the driver with the production and trafficking of illegal drugs under LAW ) of LAW . ORG further requested that the applicant company ’s lorry be confiscated under LAW ) of LAW since it had been used for the transportation of illegal narcotic drugs .

On DATE the applicant company asked ORG to provide it with the case - file concerning the charges against the driver . It also enquired when it would be able to retake possession of the seized lorry . On DATE the court informed the applicant company of the charges against the driver . It further informed the applicant company that the lorry had been seized in accordance with LAW read in conjunction with Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and that no decision could be made on the return or confiscation of the lorry until a decision on the merits had been issued . On DATE the applicant company informed the court that it opposed ORG request for confiscation of the lorry .

On DATE the ORG found the driver guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It ordered that the lorry be returned to the applicant company . It held that confiscation was possible only if one of the conditions set out in the second paragraph of LAW of LAW were met , namely the existence of reasons of general security or morality . ORG considered that that condition had not been met , taking into account the fact that there was no indication that the applicant company knew about the transportation of the illegal material .

Both the driver and ORG appealed . On DATE ORG modified the first - instance judgment and , relying on Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW , ordered the confiscation of the lorry . It held that the legislative framework provided for mandatory confiscation in cases of drug - related criminal offences since the nature of their commission , their magnitude and the dangerous consequences thereof called for the extension of coercive measures to persons who were not the perpetrators of the criminal offence , irrespective of whether or not the owners of the vehicle knew what the perpetrator had been transporting . ORG explained that in accordance with LAW , objects used in the commission of a criminal offence could be confiscated even when they did not belong to the perpetrator , in so far as the third party ’s right to claim damages from the perpetrator was not thereby affected . Moreover , Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided for the possibility of mandatory confiscation in cases provided for by the statute . Thus , Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW implemented those CARDINAL provisions by providing mandatory confiscation of the means of transport used for transportation and storage of illegal substances .

On DATE the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint against the aforementioned decision and an initiative for review of the constitutionality of Section CARDINAL ) of LAW , alleging a violation of its property rights . It complained in particular that it had not known that the lorry was being used for illegal purposes , adding that the first - instance court had explicitly established its non - involvement in the commission of the criminal offence at issue . Claiming that it had not had an effective possibility to prevent the abuse of its property for criminal purposes , the applicant company stressed that the lorry had been subject to regular controls concerning possible vehicle modifications and hidden compartments . Thus , according to the applicant company , the measure complained of constituted a punishment and an unjustified and disproportionate interference with its property and that it had not had the opportunity to participate in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed both the constitutional complaint and the initiative . In reviewing the contested legislation , ORG confirmed the Higher Court ’s view that LAW provided for mandatory confiscation of vehicles used for the transportation and storage of drugs or illegal substances in sport , regardless of their ownership . According to ORG , drug - related criminal offences sanctioned under LAW represented a great evil and an extremely high degree of threat not only from the perspective of the individual , but also from the perspective of society as a whole ; the purpose of the impugned measure was to prevent the commission of such criminal offences in the future and thus to protect important legal values in society , such as health and life – especially of young people . ORG stressed that the nature of the criminal offences in question , the manner in which they were committed and their consequences justified the interference with the ownership rights of all owners of the means of transport used for drug - trafficking , regardless of their potential involvement in the criminal activities at issue , adding that a different regulation governing the confiscation of goods would diminish considerably the possibilities for effectively preventing the criminal offences in question .

Balancing the general interests in question with the property rights of the applicant company , ORG held that the measure complained of did not amount to an excessive interference despite the fact that the applicant company had had no effective possibility for preventing the misuse of its property for criminal purposes and had not participated in the commission of the criminal offence . In this connection , ORG pointed out that legal certainty required that every instance of legally recognised damage be adequately protected . Thus , by virtue of LAW of LAW , the confiscation did not affect the right of third parties to claim compensation from the offender . Under the general rules of tort law , the injured owner had the possibility and the right to exact compensation from the person responsible for the damage . ORG added that it was for the regular courts to establish in each individual case whether all the elements required for recognition of the alleged damage and thus for payment of compensation were fulfilled .

Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG informed the applicant company that the lorry was to be sold at a public auction and that it could submit written comments in this respect . On DATE the applicant company replied that it was willing to buy the confiscated lorry . On DATE the court ordered the sale of the lorry and informed the applicant company thereof . On DATE the lorry was sold at public auction for MONEY ( “ EUR ” ) . According to the Government the lorry was sold to the applicant company . In this regard , they submitted a document stating that the lorry had been sold to “ B.K.M. LOJISTIK , TAS.VE TIC.LTD.STI ” , a company from GPE . However , the applicant company contested that statement , alleging that it was another company that had purchased the lorry . The Government did not reply to this submission .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Hajdúnánás . He is a shareholder of a limited liability company registered under NORP law , with its seat in Hajdúnánás .

On DATE the Hajdú - Bihar County Regional Court ordered the liquidation of the company . On DATE the first instance court declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company . On appeal , ORG quashed the judgment .

The first - instance court re - heard the case and on DATE it declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company . On appeal , ORG quashed the judgment on DATE .

The first - instance court re - heard the case and on DATE it declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company . The decision of the court became final on DATE .