No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The father of the applicant ’s husband owned QUANTITY of land in GPE region . This plot was nationalised in DATE .

In DATE the brother of the applicant ’s husband applied to the national authorities for the land to be returned to him and his brothers . In DATE the CARDINAL brothers signed an agreement and decided to divide their father ’s plot of land into CARDINAL equal parts of QUANTITY and GPE , the applicant ’s husband , asked for the return of his plot of land in natura .

NORP In DATE GPE participated in a meeting at FAC of ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , where he was informed that all of his father ’s land was already being used by others and could not be returned to him in natura . He was offered either monetary compensation , the restoration of his property rights in another cadastral area or a plot of land of equivalent value . V.V. did not agree to any of those offers .

In DATE the the Plungė ORG asked GPE to choose the form of restitution of his property rights . PERSON replied that he had already chosen the form of restitution in DATE , which was restitution in natura .

In DATE a meeting was held at ORG , where PERSON again refused to choose a different form of restitution . PERSON was also offered CARDINAL plots of land of QUANTITY . He stated that he would have to think about the offer and would inform the authorities before DATE .

During a meeting at ORG in DATE , PERSON said that he had not been offered any other forms of restitution in writing but acknowledged that the matter had been discussed orally . During a meeting in DATE , PERSON reiterated his wish to receive the land in natura and when he was asked to choose another form of restitution , he said that he would think about it .

NORP In DATE ORG informed GPE that because it was impossible to restore his property rights in natura , he had to choose either a plot of land or forest of equivalent value , monetary compensation or compensation in Government bonds . PERSON was also informed that if a form of restitution was not chosen , the property rights would be restored in the form determined by the authorities .

In DATE PERSON was invited to participate in a meeting at the the Plungė District Land Service , concerning the territorial plan of the area and the choice of the form of restitution . V.V. did not take part in the meeting .

In DATE PERSON asked the authorities whether and when he would be paid damages for the failure to restore his property rights in natura or to provide him with a plot of land of equivalent value . He also suggested that the NORP authorities find out what “ a plot of land of equivalent value ” meant because the plots offered to him had not been of equivalent value ( „ ir būtų gerai , kad žemėtvarkininkai išsiaiškintų žodžio „ lygiavertis “ prasmę ir nesiūlytų įstatymo nuostatų neatitinkančių variantų “ ) . In DATE ORG asked GPE to submit a written request to obtain a plot of land of equivalent value so that the authorities could prepare a document on the transfer of the land . PERSON replied that he had never been offered any plots of land of equivalent value and would only accept the restoration of his property rights in natura or a plot of land that was truly of equivalent value . PERSON also again refused the plots of land offered to him , stating that they were not of equivalent value . In DATE the authorities asked GPE to choose a form of compensation for the land . He again replied that he had chosen that the land be returned to him in natura in DATE . In DATE PERSON reminded the authorities that he wanted the land to be returned in natura or to receive a plot of land of equivalent value .

NORP In DATE ORG representative participated in a meeting at ORG , where she was asked to inform the authorities which land GPE wanted in order to restore his property rights . CARDINAL plots of land were shown to the representative and DATE she replied that she refused to accept them . In DATE she was informed that because PERSON and she had refused to accept the plots of land , she had to inform the authorities before DATE whether GPE wanted monetary compensation or compensation in Government bonds as the form of restitution . She was also informed that if no response was received , the authorities would choose the form of restitution themselves .

On DATE PERSON died and the applicant became his heir . In DATE ORG informed the applicant that she had to submit a written request to the authorities for the preparation of a document on the transfer of land and to actively choose a plot of land . The applicant replied that she would not submit any request if the land was not returned to her in natura or a plot of equivalent value was not provided .

In DATE the applicant sent CARDINAL letters to ORG and stated that she would accept a plot of land of equivalent value if such a plot was given to her and a preliminary agreement was prepared on the transfer of such a plot . She also refused to agree to a document on the transfer of land and repeatedly asked to have her property rights restored in natura or to be provided with a plot of land of equal value .

In DATE the ORG informed the applicant about the procedure for the assessment of the value of land and the calculation methods used , and asked the applicant to agree with the assessment . In DATE ORG informed the applicant that in order to provide her with a plot of land , the authorities had to prepare a document on the transfer of land . ORG also observed that there was no possibility to conclude the preliminary agreement requested by the applicant because it was not provided for in the domestic law . ORG repeated that the document on a transfer of the land had already been prepared and the applicant had to sign it and indicate the area where she would like to receive a plot of land of equivalent value . In DATE ORG informed the applicant about the procedure for restitution and reiterated that the applicant had to sign the document on the transfer of land . In DATE the applicant asked the authorities when the issue of the restoration of ORG ’s property rights in natura or by providing her a plot of land of equivalent value would be dealt with . In DATE and DATE ORG repeatedly informed the applicant that she had to sign the document . ORG also informed the applicant that it was not possible to provide her with the plot of land first . In response , the applicant stated that she would sign the land transfer document after she had been shown a plot of equivalent value .

In DATE during a meeting at ORG it had been decided to include ORG request to restore his property rights into the preparation of an additional territorial plan of the area . In DATE the ORG established that because the applicant had refused to clearly indicate the form of restitution , she would be paid monetary compensation for the land . It gave the applicant DATE to change the suggested form of restitution .

The applicant repeatedly did not choose the form of restitution for the land by the time indicated by the authorities , which is by DATE , and on CARDINAL DATE a decision was taken to restore GPE ’s property rights by paying monetary compensation of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The compensation was then adjusted ( indeksuota ) and the final sum to be paid was LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The national authorities indicated GPE as the person to whom the compensation had to be paid . The applicant was sent the decision on CARDINAL DATE . In their observations , the Government provided a document to the ORG , indicating that the compensation had been paid on DATE and DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant started court proceedings . She asked the court to annul the authorities’ decision of CARDINAL DATE to restore GPE ’s property rights by paying him monetary compensation and to pay her LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage . She stated that she wanted the land to be returned in natura or to be provided with a plot of land of equivalent value and she did not understand why the authorities kept asking her to make a new choice on the form of restitution DATE . She further asked the authorities to explain why there had been no activity from DATE in the process of the restitution of her property rights . Finally , she complained that compensation calculated at LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) was too low .

On DATE ORG established that in DATE PERSON had asked for his property rights to be restored by being given QUANTITY of land in natura and that that had been a proper expression of his will . As the land in question was already being used by other people , GPE and later the applicant had been asked to choose another form of restitution . However , they had never expressly done so . Moreover , the court held that the applicant had never changed the original wish to have the land returned in natura because she had refused to agree to the document on the transfer of land , which would have allowed her to have a plot of equivalent value returned to her . As a consequence , and in accordance with the domestic law , the national authorities had chosen monetary compensation as the form of restitution , which had not breached any requirements of the domestic law . As for damages , the court held that the authorities had acted correctly and the necessary conditions to pay damages had not been satisfied .

In DATE the applicant lodged an appeal . She complained that she had chosen the form of restitution because she wanted land of equal value to be returned to her in natura . She also stated that if her choice had been unclear to the authorities , they should have taken action to clarify it . She further complained that the monetary compensation was unjust and too low .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The court stated that PERSON had expressed a wish for his property rights to be restored to him in natura . The court also established that GPE had been aware of the fact that there was no possibility of returning the land to him in natura because it was already being used by other people . PERSON had been asked several times by the national authorities to choose another form of restitution but he had insisted on restitution in natura . The court held that the national authorities had failed to inform GPE about the time - limit for choosing the form of restitution , as the domestic law provided for such information to be sent before DATE and the letter had only been sent to GPE on DATE . The court however observed that that circumstance was not of major significance because ORG had written on DATE that he would never change his mind about the form of restitution . After ORG had died , the applicant had been asked to choose the form of restitution but had persisted in asking to have the land returned to her in natura or to be provided with a plot of equivalent value . The court also held that the applicant had misinterpreted the provisions of the domestic law because she had required that she be provided with a plot of land of equivalent value and a preliminary agreement , and had stated that only then would she sign a document on the transfer of land . That had been contrary to the procedure established in the domestic law . The court also considered that although at some point the applicant had indicated that providing her with a plot of land of equivalent value was an alternative way to restore her property rights , she had tied that form to her own rules and requirements , which were not possible under the domestic law . The court further observed that the national authorities had decided to pay the applicant monetary compensation as the form of restitution . Lastly , the court held that the applicant ’s argument as to the amount of compensation was unsubstantiated because she had not provided specific arguments proving that the amount of compensation had been determined in breach of domestic requirements .

On DATE the applicant started court proceedings for debt and interest over the failure of the national authorities to pay her monetary compensation .

NORP In reply to the request by the authorities , on CARDINAL DATE the notary dealing with the inheritance procedure for GPE ’s property stated that after PERSON ’s death she had issued the applicant with certificates of the right to inheritance with regard to movable and immovable property . However , she had not issued the applicant with the document allowing the applicant to get the monetary compensation paid to GPE because the applicant had not provided her with the decision of the national authorities of CARDINAL DATE to restore GPE ’s property rights .

In their comments to the applicant ’s reply to the ORG ’s observations , the Government acknowledged that the monetary compensation had never been transferred to the applicant “ due to human error ” . The national authorities could not transfer the monetary compensation to the applicant because of the absence of the document proving that she was an heir of GPE and the absence of the applicant ’s account number . The applicant submitted the relevant documents together with her account number and the compensation was transferred to her account on DATE .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants in the first case , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .

The applicants in the second case , Mr PERSON and Ms PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in FAC .

In DATE road construction projects were often carried out in GPE on privately owned plots of land which were de facto taken over for that purpose by the authorities despite de fact that the ownership of those plots had not been validly transferred to the ORG or other public bodies .

In DATE the legislator adopted a statute specifically addressing the situation of persons whose lands had in the past been taken over for road construction purposes ; in particular with a view to bringing their legal status into line with the realities of DATE and to ensure payment of compensation to former owners or their legal successors ( see Relevant domestic law , paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

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

On an unspecified point in time part of the applicants’ land was taken over by the ORG and a road was built on it .

By virtue of the ORG resolution dated DATE the road which crossed through the applicants’ property was classified as a local town road ( droga lokalna miejska ) .

On an unspecified date the Mazowiecki Governor ( ORG ) , acting ex officio , instituted proceedings concerning the land taken over from the applicants .

On DATE the Governor ( ORG ) issued a decision confirming the acquisition ex lege by the municipality with effect from DATE of the part of the property covered by the road . This decision was based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE ORG ( LAW , hereinafter LAW ( LOC -przepisy wprowadząjace ustawy reformujące administrację publiczną ) , regulating the status of properties taken over in the past by the ORG for the purposes of constructing public roads ( see Relevant domestic law below , paragraph CARDINAL ) . Under this LAW , owners whose land had ex lege become the ORG ’s or local ORG property on DATE under its section CARDINAL ) , were entitled to request compensation if they applied for it DATE and DATE . On DATE the period for submitting the compensation claim would expire .

On DATE the applicants requested compensation for the land to which the decision of DATE pertained .

On DATE the Mayor of the LOC discontinued the proceedings for compensation , finding that the applicants’ request for compensation had been lodged after the period for submitting their claim had expired . The applicants appealed .

On DATE the Mazowiecki Governor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE in so far as it had discontinued the proceedings and refused to allow the ORG request for compensation , finding that the period for submitting their claim had expired on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ appeal , considering that they should have sought compensation prior to DATE . The judgment was served on the applicants’ lawyer on DATE .

On DATE the lawyer informed the applicants that there were no grounds on which to bring a cassation appeal before ORG as their entitlement to claim compensation claim had been extinguished under the provisions of LAW CARDINAL . It followed that the cassation appeal would not have offered any prospects of success .

On DATE ORG informed the applicants that administrative proceedings had been instituted ex officio with a view to giving a decision confirming the ex lege expropriation with effect from DATE of land taken from them prior to DATE for road construction purposes .

On DATE the applicants requested that compensation be paid to them .

On DATE the FAC Governor ( PERSON ) issued a decision confirming the acquisition ex lege by the municipality with effect from DATE of the land covered by the road . It was based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE

On DATE the ORG ) refused to pay compensation to the applicants , referring to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The applicants appealed , relying on the constitutional protection of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions . They argued that the authorities had failed to deal with their case speedily , since the proceedings to confirm expropriation had not been instituted until DATE , DATE after LAW CARDINAL had entered into force . As a result , they had been deprived of their entitlement to compensation . Had the authorities instituted the proceedings before the relevant expiry date , the applicants would not have lost their entitlement . They referred in particular to their advanced age and to the fact that the second applicant was in poor health , which made it extremely difficult for her to take the relevant steps , in particular in the absence of any information about her legal situation .

On DATE the FAC Governor dismissed their appeal . The applicants appealed to ORG . On DATE the ORG stayed the proceedings , pending the outcome of the case No . K CARDINAL/CARDINAL instituted by the PERSON which was at that time being examined by ORG ( see below , Relevant domestic law ) .

The proceedings were resumed at DATE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE served on the applicants on DATE the administrative court dismissed their appeal , referring to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and to the judgments of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . It held that the period for submitting the compensation claim had expired in accordance with the terms specified in the Act .

As well as introducing general reforms to public administration , ORG ( LAW DATE of CARDINAL DATE ( PERSON wprowadzające ustawy reformujące administrację publiczną ) regulated the legal status of land taken over in the past for the purposes of road construction without a formal transfer of ownership of the land .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that Act conferred ex lege on ORG or on the relevant local municipality ownership of such lands with effect from DATE based on de facto possession . It further stipulated that the former owners had a right to compensation .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that the former owners could submit compensation claims to the administrative authorities DATE and DATE . After DATE the compensation claim had to expire . The original wording of this provision referred to a future statute which would govern the principles and procedures for the determination of the compensation to be awarded . It was amended in DATE and the general reference to a “ separate LAW therein was replaced by the specific reference to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The Act was published in ORG in DATE , no . CARDINAL , as item no . CARDINAL . It entered into force on DATE of its publication , DATE .

On DATE LAW of DATE ( LOC o gospodarce nieruchomościami – “ LAW ” ) entered into force . It provides a generally applicable legal framework for expropriations . Although some of its provisions were modified in DATE , the substance of the provisions relevant to the present case remained unchanged .

In accordance with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW , compensation for expropriation has to correspond to the value of the property right concerned . Under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW , the amount of compensation is fixed regard being had to the status and value of the property on DATE on which the expropriation decision was given . The value of the property is estimated on the basis of an opinion prepared by a certified expert .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the market value of the expropriated property to serve as a basis on which the amount of compensation is fixed . The following criteria are to be taken into consideration when establishing the market value of the property : its type , location , the use to which it has been put , the existence of any technical infrastructure on the property , its overall state and current prices of properties in the municipality .

In its judgment of DATE ( P CARDINAL ) ORG declared the section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE compatible with LAW as well as with LAW CARDINAL to the Convention . It discontinued the proceedings in respect of the section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE .

The court stressed that the legislator intended to regulate in a general manner the question of land ownership in a domain of particular public importance . Sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE concerned plots taken over during DATE for the purpose of road construction . The de facto taking of land and construction of roads created irreversible situations . The contested provisions pertained only to past situations and did not allow any further taking over of plots . The legislation under review served not only the public interest but also the interests of owners . It ended the state of uncertainty caused by the fact that they had not been able to exercise their ownership . The ex lege effect of the provisions was a rational solution which made it possible to bring the legal status of the plots into line with the realities .

In its judgment of DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) ORG declared section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE compatible with LAW . The court stressed that LAW DATE concerned plots whose legal status did not reflect their actual situation existing for long periods of time , lasting for DATE . ORG emphasised that the owners concerned had in the past a possibility of asserting their rights but had failed to do so within the applicable time - limits .

The legislation vesting ownership of properties in ORG or local municipalities by way of LAW was a CARDINAL - off and exceptional solution the effects of which were limited in time . It concerned only land taken over for the purposes of road construction . It required special measures to be applied , partially departing from those envisaged by LAW . The solution consisting in assessing ex officio the status of all the plots concerned and issuing ex officio individual decisions confirming expropriation ex lege in each and every case could have not been carried out within a reasonable time .

The court observed that the special provisions created by LAW imposed certain limitations on the compensation paid to the owners whose lands had been in the past de facto expropriated for road construction purposes . These limitations included their inability to request compensation DATE ; a limitation on the period within which such applications could be made until DATE ; a failure to specify exactly when compensation had to be paid to the person entitled ; and a failure to take into account changes to the value of the property between the date ownership was formally transferred by way of a decision confirming the ex lege expropriation and the date the compensation was decided . However , the context and character of the set of measures created by LAW justified these restrictions .

On DATE the ORG gave a judgment ( CARDINAL ) in reply to legal question put to it by ORG . That court requested ORG to make an assessment of compatibility of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW in so far as this provision allowed for a compensation entitlement to be irrevocably extinguished regardless of whether an administrative decision confirming the acquisition ex lege , as from DATE , of land used for road construction purposes by the municipality ( or ORG ) had been given . ORG noted that proceedings concerning such decisions were governed by the generally applicable provisions of LAW . Former owners were parties to these proceedings . The decisions confirming that the municipality or ORG , as the case might be , had acquired ownership of properties taken de facto over by the ORG in the past were of a declaratory character . The fact that LAW did not provide for a time - limit for the authorities to give such decisions did not mean that it was impossible in law for former owners to claim compensation in absence of these decisions . These decisions were not a legal prerequisite for claiming compensation prior to the expiry of the substantive time - limit provided for by that LAW , namely DATE . If a request for compensation was submitted in the absence of a decision , the compensation proceedings should be stayed . The authority to which the compensation request was submitted was obliged to request the governor to give a decision confirming the expropriation ex lege as from DATE , after which the compensation proceedings had to be resumed . ORG referred to the practice of the administrative authorities , established by the courts ( ORG , I OSK CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG , I SA / Wa CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and I SA / Wa CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The court observed that the request for compensation under LAW was in principle a second opportunity for owners to seek compensation as they could have claimed it in the past when their land had been taken for the road construction purposes .

On DATE the ORG challenged the constitutionality of the section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , submitting that it breached the proportionality principle enshrined in the LAW by introducing an unclear and unconstitutional notion of “ equitable ” ( słuszne ) compensation , differing from that used for ordinary compensation purposes in the DATE LAW . It was also in breach of the constitutional protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions , as the compensation entitlement had irrevocably ceased to exist on DATE . It was further submitted that the period for submitting a compensation claim should not have been allowed to expire before the administration had given an expropriation decision . No provision was made in the DATE Act obliging the authorities to issue the expropriation decisions prior to DATE , which rendered that regulation manifestly unfair ( “ regulacja pozorna ” ) and deprived owners of a reasonable protection of their rights .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( K CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG dismissed the ORG ’s challenge . It essentially rephrased its own reasoning adopted in DATE and reiterated that the former owners had had ample time to take appropriate steps to obtain compensation ; initially DATE of vacatio legis after LAW had entered into force and , subsequently , DATE within which to seek compensation . It had been possible for them to secure their rights by demonstrating adequate diligence .

In a number of decisions the courts held that the decisions given under LAW confirming acquisition ex lege of the land by the municipalities ( or by ORG ) on DATE were of a declaratory character . The courts also held that the fact that such a decision had not been issued did not prevent the persons concerned from claiming compensation under the provisions of that LAW ( see e.g. ORG , I SA / WA CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ; the ORG , ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE and ORG , resolution III CZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They were represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , and PERSON and PERSON from ORG in GPE , GPE . The applicants stated that they were also submitting the application on behalf of their relative PERSON , who had died on an unspecified date at DATE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

NORP In DATE PERSON , who was the daughter of the first and second applicants and the sister of the third applicant , and was born in DATE , was diagnosed with schizophrenia . In DATE she was declared mentally incapable by the ORG and was deprived of legal capacity . No guardian was appointed as it was decided that she would be represented by her parents .

As PERSON ’s state of health deteriorated , on DATE the family placed her in an institution , ORG Mentally Ill Adults in the village of Radovtsi ( hereafter referred to as “ the Radovtsi Home ” ) . The home was financed by the ORG and managed by the mayor of the GPE municipality .

An inspection by ORG carried out in DATE established that the Radovtsi Home housed CARDINAL mentally ill patients at the time . The building was in a poor state of repair due to the lack of funds to carry out renovation work .

The inspectors also established that during DATE inmates of the home whose state of health was especially poor were kept in a locked room , known as the “ room for special care ” . The inspectors recommended the closure of the room , which was implemented on DATE . After that date the inmates were allowed to move around freely within the building , the doors of which nevertheless remained locked . The yard outside , occupying an area of QUANTITY , was enclosed by a wire fence . Even though on some occasions inmates managed to leave the home , they always returned promptly .

At TIME on DATE a member of the staff of ORG administered a medication with a sedative and tranquilising effect to PERSON . DATE , around lunchtime , PERSON could not be found . Another inmate had seen her shortly beforehand , when Ms Lazarova had said that she was very hungry and was going to look for a friend of hers in the village . The gates had been open .

At TIME the staff informed the director of the home of Ms ORG ’s disappearance . They conducted a search of the area : on foot in the vicinity of the building and by vehicle in the neighbouring villages . They checked abandoned and derelict buildings . It had been snowing , but as the roads had just been cleaned , there were no footprints . It appears that the search may have been suspended at nightfall , although some documents indicate that it continued until TIME The search was resumed DATE . Oral contact with the police was established at TIME on DATE , and written contact on CARDINAL DATE , when PERSON was officially declared missing . The staff of the home and the police questioned the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages , some of whom said that they had seen a woman they did not know . However , PERSON was not found when the locations concerned were visited and searched . The search continued over DATE but did not yield any result .

The case file contains contradictory information as to the date on which the ORG staff informed the applicants about their relative ’s disappearance . Some documents indicate that this happened on DATE , whereas the applicants allege that they were not contacted until DATE .

Valya Lazarova ’s body was found on DATE , QUANTITY away from the home . According to the post mortem , her death was due to hypothermia and physical exhaustion . There were no traces of physical violence . Death had occurred DATE before the body ’s discovery .

On DATE the third applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecution authorities alleging that the staff of ORG were responsible for his sister ’s disappearance from the home and her subsequent death .

NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE a prosecutor from the GPE regional public prosecutor ’s office concluded that there was no indication that PERSON had been the victim of intentional homicide .

A separate investigation was opened in relation to offences under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , namely exposing the life of a vulnerable person to risk and failing to assist a vulnerable person . In a decision dated DATE a prosecutor from the FAC district public prosecutor ’s office refused to institute formal criminal proceedings against identified persons under those provisions , noting that on DATE when PERSON had disappeared there had been CARDINAL members of the medical staff and CARDINAL orderlies on duty . None of them had been personally responsible for ensuring the inmates’ physical presence . Accordingly , it did not appear that any of them had committed an offence under Articles CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Criminal Code .

Upon an appeal by the third applicant , on DATE a prosecutor from the GPE regional public prosecutor ’s office quashed the abovementioned decision and ordered a further investigation into the matter .

The GPE district public prosecutor ’s office interviewed the staff who had been on duty on DATE , residents of the village of Radovtsi and the people who had participated in the search following PERSON disappearance . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE a prosecutor from that office again refused to institute criminal proceedings , concluding that there was no indication that any of the staff members of ORG had committed an offence .

Upon a further appeal by the third applicant , on DATE that decision was upheld by the GPE regional public prosecutor ’s office . In addition to the findings of the ORG public prosecutor ’s office , it noted that the building housing the Radovtsi Home had been in a poor state of repair and that the institution had been understaffed . This , combined with the very poor state of health of the inmates , had facilitated PERSON disappearance from the home ; however , these factors had not been within the staff ’s control . Accordingly , none of the staff members , including the director of the home , could be held criminally liable .

In decisions dated DATE and DATE respectively , the PERSON appellate prosecutor ’s office and ORG upheld the above - mentioned decisions .

On an unspecified date the third applicant also complained to ORG , which conducted an inquiry and informed the applicant of its findings in a letter dated DATE . The inquiry showed that the director of ORG had been informed of PERSON disappearance at TIME on DATE . The search had started immediately after that . Members of the staff had searched the neighbouring villages . The police and the mountain rescue service had joined in as well . The enquiry concluded that the search had been prompt and adequate . Moreover , it transpired that PERSON had left the home on another occasion in DATE , but had been found DATE .

On DATE the applicants brought a tort action against the GPE municipality , ORG and the ORG under the ORG and ORG ( “ the ORG ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They claimed CARDINAL NORP levs for each of them in compensation for non - pecuniary damage resulting from GPE death . In their statement of claim they argued that the medical treatment and the care provided to PERSON in FAC had been inadequate and that her needs had been neglected . They pointed out that the “ room for special care ” in the home had been closed in DATE , and argued that inmates in a serious state of health had been provided with no alternative care . In addition , they alleged that the staff of the home had not been sufficiently trained and had not treated the inmates in a humane manner . They also pointed out that the living conditions in the home had been poor . They argued that PERSON death was

“ directly and immediately linked to the lack of appropriate care in the social institution , lack of administrative supervision on the part of the GPE municipality , lack of adequate support for the institution ’s work and lack of good practice ” .

NORP The statement of claim was reviewed by a judge of ORG , who on DATE instructed the applicants to specify those administrative duties performed by the defendants in the course of which the alleged damage had occurred . The judge also asked for clarification of the specific acts and omissions complained of in respect of each defendant and the grounds for viewing these acts or omissions as unlawful .

NORP In response , on DATE the applicants submitted that the mayor of the FAC municipality , in his role as employer , and the bodies responsible for social assistance ( forming part of the centralised ORG ) had failed to monitor the staff of ORG as regards the performance of their duty to “ provide individually tailored social services and assess the needs of NORP Lazarova ” and had failed to ensure the presence of qualified medical personnel . They alleged that the mayor had also failed to ensure that the living conditions in the home were satisfactory in relation to PERSON ’s state of health and that ORG had failed to ensure methodical assistance , administrative supervision and the necessary financing . As to the ORG , represented by ORG , they claimed that it had not created the necessary legislative framework , had not adopted policies ensuring that staff of social care institutions were adequately qualified , and had not provided the GPE municipality with the financing needed by ORG .

In a decision dated DATE ORG refused to accept the statement of claim for examination , noting that the applicants had failed to provide the information and the clarification requested on DATE . In particular , it considered that the submissions of CARDINAL DATE mostly restated the initial statement of claim and that the inclusion of a new possible defendant , ORG , led to confusion . It thus concluded that

“ neither the [ statement of claim ] , nor the additional submissions contain a request to order the cessation of an action that is not based on an administrative decision or on law , nor do they allege failure to take actions which the administrative body is obliged to take pursuant to the law , which actions or omissions are causally linked to the damage they allegedly sustained . ”

Upon an appeal by the applicants , on DATE the abovementioned decision was upheld by ORG .

The State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act ( “ the ORG ” ) provides in LAW that the ORG and the municipalities are liable for damage caused to private individuals and legal entities as a result of unlawful decisions , acts or omissions of their authorities or officials while discharging their administrative duties . Since DATE claims under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG have been examined by the administrative courts under the rules of LAW .

It is also possible to seek damages from the ORG and the municipalities under the general tort provisions ( sections CARDINAL et seq . ) of ORG Legal persons may be vicariously liable under section CARDINAL of the Act , which provides that a person who has entrusted another with performing a job is liable for the damage caused by that other person in the course of or in connection with the performance of the job . In this case the employer ’s liability is presumed and is to be engaged even where it can not be established which of its employees has caused the damage ( ORG DATE г. , ORG DATE от CARDINAL г. ) . Section CARDINAL of ORG has been successfully relied on in a case which , like the present one , concerned the disappearance and the subsequent death of a mentally ill patient placed in a social care institution . The domestic courts , which found that the staff of the institution – by virtue of its internal rules – had been responsible for constantly monitoring and supervising the claimants’ relative , ordered the mayor of the respective municipality , as their employer , to pay the damages sought ( ORG от CARDINAL г. , PERSON съд I ГО , гр. д. № DATE г. ; ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. , PERSON апелативен съд , ORG колегия , гр. д. № DATE ; PERSON № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № DATE , ORG , III г. о. ) .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the Šibenik Municipal State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u PERSON ) indicted the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of attempted grievous bodily harm .

The first hearing before ORG was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE of the hearing , the applicant informed ORG that he was unable to appear at the hearing owing to a medical condition . He also submitted medical documentation in that regard .

Several witnesses also failed to attend the hearing and the applicant ’s lawyer informed the trial court that she no longer represented the applicant . The hearing was adjourned and the next hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

At the hearing of DATE the applicant , who was not properly summoned , failed to appear . The president of the trial panel ordered that the applicant be summoned by a letter indicating that his defence lawyer no longer represented him and that he should either appoint another lawyer or the hearing would be held in the absence of a lawyer .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he was not able to appear for trial owing to his medical condition . He explained that he would be unavailable for a certain period of time because he was required to undergo medical treatment and promised to inform the court of the progress of that treatment . He therefore asked that the proceedings be stayed until he was able to appear at the hearings . The applicant also submitted back - up medical documentation .

At a hearing on DATE the Deputy State Attorney asked the trial court to commission a medical report concerning the applicant ’s capacity to take part in the proceedings given his state of health .

On DATE a medical expert , ORG , submitted a report indicating that the applicant suffered from heart arrhythmia . She considered that he would not be able to take part in the hearings for a period of time which was hard to predict . She therefore suggested that the trial court re - examine his condition after DATE .

On DATE the Šibenik ORG invited the applicant to submit medical documentation noting the progress of his treatment .

The applicant complied with the order and submitted the documentation on DATE . ORG then commissioned another medical report .

On DATE medical expert ORG submitted a further report , indicating that the applicant ’s state of health had not stabilised despite the medical treatment he had been receiving and that he could not appear at the hearings . She reiterated that it was not possible to predict the exact period of time in which he would not be able to take part in the proceedings and suggested that his condition be reassessed at appropriate intervals .

Another medical report was commissioned on CARDINAL DATE from a forensic expert , a cardiologist and a psychiatrist .

On DATE the medical experts , ORG , ORG and PERSON , submitted a joint report . They found that the applicant was not able to take part in the hearings and that a strong triggering factor , such as stress , could lead to a heart attack with a possibly fatal outcome .

On DATE the ORG commissioned a further medical report from medical experts ORG , ORG and PERSON

The medical experts submitted their report on DATE , in which they noted :

“ ... we still consider that the accused ’s appearance at the hearing would be a risk factor which could ( although it might not ) lead to a heart attack , and how that will further develop it is hard to predict , which makes PERSON theoretically unable to appear at the hearing .

However , we consider that his appearance at the hearing would be possible only in the presence of [ a ] doctor , namely a medical team equipped for prompt intervention in the event of a heart attack at the trial . ”

The Šibenik ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . It summoned the applicant , the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , whose services he had engaged on DATE , and a cardiologist , GPE , to the hearing .

At a hearing on DATE ORG noted that the applicant ’s defence lawyer had informed it on DATE that she could not attend the hearing because she was on maternity leave . The applicant was not properly summoned and did not attend the hearing . The cardiologist , GPE , did not attend the hearing , nor did he excuse his absence . The hearing was adjourned and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he could not appear at the hearing scheduled for DATE due to his medical condition . He referred to the medical expert report of DATE .

On DATE ORG , relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed the applicant ’s request for adjournment as abusive on the grounds that the necessary medical back - up had been secured by summoning the cardiologist , GPE , to the hearing . The court considered that the applicant was trying to delay the proceedings . It also found that , according to the information available to it , the applicant had taken part in a number of other court proceedings as claimant and private prosecutor .

On DATE , ORG held a hearing at which the applicant did not appear and to which his defence counsel had not been summoned . The cardiologist , GPE , again did not attend the hearing , nor did he excuse his absence . The hearing was held in the presence of the Deputy State Attorney and the victim ’s representative . After the hearing , at which the trial court examined the evidence and written records of witnesses’ oral statements , it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal before the Šibenik ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) against the decision to hold a hearing in his absence . The applicant complained that he had not been able to appear at the hearing owing to his medical condition and that the trial court ’s findings that he had taken part in a number of other court proceedings had been unsubstantiated and untrue , as while he had been a party to the other proceedings he had never taken part in the trials .

On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged further statements of appeal before the ORG asking that court to quash the first - instance judgment and to order a retrial . He reiterated that the hearing of DATE had been held in his absence , even though he had not been able to appear at the hearing owing to his medical condition . He also complained that the necessary medical back - up at the hearing had not been ensured , as a medical team had never been obtained and the cardiologist , GPE , had twice failed to attend the hearings . Moreover , the defence had never been informed that a back - up medical team would be provided , and had the trial court considered that he was abusing his procedural rights , it should have ensured that he had legal representation at the trial .

During the appeal proceedings , the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG ( GPE državno odvjetništvo u PERSON ) , which represented the prosecution case on appeal , asked the Šibenik ORG to allow the applicant ’s appeal and to order a retrial .

On DATE the Šibenik ORG , in closed session , without holding a hearing , dismissed all the appeals and upheld the first - instance judgment . That court found that the applicant had been abusing his procedural rights and that he had been doing nothing more than trying to delay the trial .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining that the hearing before the first - instance court had been held in his absence .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the emergency services in ORG ( since renamed ORG ) . She gave birth to a son who has irreversible injuries caused by the birth .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action before ORG against the hospital , claiming damages for the injuries caused to her son . She claimed that contrary to her doctor ’s instructions , the medical staff who treated her during labor had not performed a caesarean thus her son being born with several problems which caused him permanent motor - neurone injuries . She held that the hospital was responsible for medical negligence at birth .

On DATE the hospital contested the civil action .

On DATE a preliminary hearing was held . A second session of the preliminary hearing was scheduled for DATE , which was adjourned because the time - limits for the analysis of the documents had not expired . The hearing was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant requested ORG to issue an interim measure ( providência cautelar ) seeking a temporary remediation ( arbitramento de uma reparação provisória ) . On DATE ORG ordered interim payment of ORG DATE to the applicant and her husband until the decision in the main proceedings would be delivered and become res judicata .

On DATE the hospital sought leave for the medical and nursing team to intervene in the proceedings . On DATE the applicant replied to the hospital ’s request .

The hearing called for DATE had to be adjourned because of the hospital ’s request .

On DATE the judge gave directions ( despacho saneador ) setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding .

On DATE and on DATE the hospital and the applicant submitted evidence and both requested expert ’s appointement .

On DATE the judge admitted the evidence submitted by the parties and ordered an expert medical report .

On DATE ORG requested ORG ( ORG dos ORG ) to appoint medical experts . Several requests were made concerning medical experts in gynaecology and obstetrics . ORG replied to all requests .

On DATE ORG ) submitted its forensic report , which contained its preliminary conclusions .

On DATE ORG lodged a request with ORG seeking access to all the medical reports in respect of the birth of the applicant ’s son . On DATE the parties were notified to submit the relevant medical reports . On DATE the hospital submitted its reports and on DATE the applicant request for an extension of the time - limit . On DATE the applicant submitted the medical reports .

On DATE ORG submitted its expert report .

On DATE and on DATE , the appointed experts in gynaecology and obstetrics and the appointed experts in paediatrics submitted their reports , respectively .

The parties were notified of the reports and on DATE the applicant requested a second expert medical report . On DATE the hospital opposed to the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the ORG requested the experts to clarify existing doubts with regard to their reports . The clarifications were submitted on CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to appoint experts in gynaecology and obstetrics to provide technical advice during trial . On DATE the ORG appointed an expert .

DATE and DATE ORG listed QUANTITY hearings . In between hearings new evidence was submitted by the parties .

On DATE ORG delivered its decision in which it considered that the hospital could not be held liable for the injuries for lack of evidence in that regard .

On DATE the applicant challenged the outcome of the proceedings before ORG of the LOC .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision .

On DATE the application of the interim measure ended when the decision of the second - instance court became res judicata .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and was placed in a temporary detention facility of ORG of GPE ( “ the GPE ” ) . According to the applicant , police officers under the command of police officer PERSON took him to special cells for questioning , where they tried to extract a confession from him or else make him sign blank sheets of paper . As he refused , they handcuffed him to a chair and beat him on his back and sides . Eventually he did sign a confession .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in ORG , LOC ( “ ORG ” ) . Following a medical examination , the remand prison authorities refused to admit the applicant . In a report of the same date they indicated that he had a number of injuries , including a contusion of the spine and a contusion of the left side of the chest with a suspected fracture of the ribs , and that he needed further examination by medical experts .

On DATE the applicant was taken back to ORG and then transported to the GPE town hospital , where he underwent a medical examination , including an X - ray examination . The physician and neuropathologist who examined the applicant noted their findings in the above - mentioned report of ORG . They are barely legible , but appear to confirm that the applicant had contusions of the spine and of the chest .

On the reverse side of the referral for the X - ray examination dated CARDINAL DATE there is a hand - written finding by a radiologist dated DATE . It is likewise barely legible , but appears to confirm the contusion of the spine and the absence of a fracture .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG .

On DATE the head of ORG issued CARDINAL certificates addressed to the ORG . According to CARDINAL certificate , DATE and DATE while the applicant was held in PERSON DATE he had not made any complaints concerning his detention . According to the other certificate , admission of the applicant to ORG had been refused on CARDINAL DATE as it appeared necessary to conduct an additional medical examination in order to confirm the diagnosis . No entry to that effect was made in the remand prison register since , in accordance with the applicable regulations , the register contained only information about individuals actually held in the remand prison , whereas the applicant was not admitted .

On DATE the applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police . He referred , in particular , to the report of DATE confirming his injuries .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s complaint . The relevant decision stated briefly that there was no information in the ORG indicating that the applicant had ever requested medical assistance during his detention pending trial . It went on to note that , according to a certificate from the GPE town hospital , which the applicant had attended , he had been diagnosed with influenza and spontaneous rupture of tendons . The decision further stated that during his detention pending trial , none of the injuries indicated in the applicant ’s complaint had been found on his person , and concluded that the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment were unfounded and unsupported by any evidence . The decision remained silent about the report of DATE to which the applicant referred in his complaint .

On DATE a supervising prosecutor set aside the above decision .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’s complaint . The decision was similar to that of CARDINAL DATE and stated , in particular , that there was no information in the ORG indicating that the applicant had requested medical assistance , or that any injuries had been inflicted on him during his detention pending trial . According to the decision , it was impossible to obtain an extract from the register of detainees of the ORG since all the documents had been lost by its former head . The decision also referred to a certificate from the GPE town hospital attesting that the applicant had been diagnosed with influenza and spontaneous rupture of tendons , and stated that this latter injury had not been related to the injuries alleged by the applicant . The decision also indicated that the applicant had not undergone any medical forensic examination in the course of the criminal proceedings against him . It then concluded that the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment were unfounded and unsupported by any evidence . The decision did not mention the applicant ’s reference to the report of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG under LAW of LAW concerning the decision of CARDINAL DATE , arguing that the inquiry into his allegations of ill - treatment by the police had been incomplete and , in particular , the investigating authorities had ignored the report of DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG returned the applicant ’s complaint to him , indicating that a number of shortcomings should be remedied . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as premature , stating that the inquiry had been incomplete . The prosecutor ordered the investigating authorities to identify and interview the police officers and the senior investigator who had participated in the criminal proceedings against the applicant , to obtain copies of documents from ORG concerning the applicant ’s medical examination there , to obtain relevant documents from his personal file and to perform other necessary actions .

By a decision of DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint concerning the decision of DATE , stating that this latter decision had by that time already been set aside by a supervising prosecutor and an additional inquiry into the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment had been ordered . It is unclear whether the applicant appealed against the ORG decision to a higher court .

On DATE the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . Their decision stated that , upon receipt of the documentation seeking a further inquiry , requests for information had been sent to the head of ORG and the head of ORG , and that the investigator in charge of the criminal case against the applicant had been interviewed . The decision then stated that “ at present there [ was ] no objective evidence that officers of ORG [ had ] applied violence to the applicant ” .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE , stating that the inquiry into the applicant ’s allegations of beating by the police had been incomplete , that the necessary measures had not been taken and , in particular , copies of documents from ORG concerning the applicant ’s medical examination at that centre and relevant documents from his personal file had not been obtained .

NORP In a decision of DATE , similar to that of CARDINAL DATE , the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment by the police , stating that , “ as of this date , no replies to requests for information sent earlier [ had ] been received ” , and that “ therefore there [ was ] no objective evidence that officers of ORG [ had ] inflicted violence on the applicant ” .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision .

On DATE the ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant concerning the decision of DATE , stating that this latter decision had already been quashed and a further inquiry had been ordered . The applicant did not appeal against the first - instance decision .

On DATE the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’s complaint that he had been beaten by the police . The relevant decision noted that the applicant , when interviewed with regard to his allegations , had submitted that during the period of his detention in the Shchelkovo IVS he had been ill - treated on several occasions by police officers , who had chained him to a chair or a table and had beaten him on his back and in the ribs , and that upon his delivery to ORG a report had been drawn up confirming his injuries . He had also stated that he had undergone an X - ray examination in the GPE town hospital on DATE and that the results of that examination had been recorded in QUANTITY - ray image no . CARDINAL . The applicant had submitted that he did not know the police officers who had beaten him , and that he only knew a certain ORG , an officer of ORG , who had not himself applied force to the applicant , but had brought with him CARDINAL individuals in civilian clothes , the latter forcing the applicant to confess to the alleged offence . The decision went on to say that in the applicant ’s personal file there was no information indicating whether he had undergone any medical examinations in the period DATE and DATE .

The decision further referred to a reply from ORG , according to which the remand prison had no information concerning the applicant ’s examination by a medical official on DATE . It also pointed out that a reply from the GPE town hospital had provided no information indicating that the applicant had ever undergone an X - ray examination in that hospital , nor was there any X - ray image such as that referred to by the applicant in the hospital ’s archive . The decision further stated that the officer ORG , referred to by the applicant , and investigators B. and PERSON , who had conducted the investigation into the applicant ’s criminal case , when interviewed in the context of the present inquiry had denied using physical force or psychological pressure in respect of the applicant or seeing anyone else doing so . The decision also noted that the applicant had not complained about the alleged ill - treatment until DATE after the events in question . It then stated that the investigating authorities considered that the applicant had alleged such ill - treatment by the police in an attempt “ to mislead the investigating authorities , who were spending their time and resources investigating offences that [ had ] in reality [ not been ] committed , and to accuse public officials of serious offences , thereby affecting a number of individuals who were obliged to devote time to giving oral evidence to the investigating authorities ” . The decision therefore concluded that there was no evidence of the offence alleged by the applicant .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of DATE , stating that the inquiry had been incomplete .

On DATE the ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant concerning the decision of DATE , referring to the fact that this latter decision had already been quashed by the supervising prosecutor . The applicant did not appeal against the first - instance decision .

On DATE the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant ’s complaint that he had been ill - treated by the police . The relevant decision was identical to that of DATE . The only comment added was that it appeared impossible to question investigator PERSON and officer PERSON , as they had not responded to telephone calls .

On DATE the ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant concerning the decision of DATE . Although the court noted that the applicant referred to the medical report of CARDINAL DATE , it did not address it any further but instead stated that the investigation conducted into his allegations had been complete . The court referred , in particular , to certain explanations obtained from the investigators who had been in charge of the applicant ’s case .

A request by the applicant to restore the time - limit for appealing against the decision of DATE was granted by the ORG on DATE .

On DATE the GPE ORG quashed the decision of the ORG of DATE on appeal on the following grounds . Firstly , although the applicant had challenged the judge DATE because it was the same judge who had convicted him – this had not been examined by the first - instance court . Secondly , the first - instance court had not examined the report of CARDINAL DATE and , thirdly , it had referred to certain explanations by investigator PERSON and officer ORG that could not be found in the case file .

On DATE the ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s complaint concerning the decision of DATE . The court stated , in particular , that whereas the applicant had provided a copy of the report of CARDINAL DATE , it appeared impossible to verify its authenticity since there was no information about the medical examination in question in his file . It further noted that neither during the preliminary investigation nor at the trial had the applicant made any allegations of ill - treatment . It is not clear whether the applicant appealed .

Meanwhile the applicant resubmitted his complaint of ill - treatment , which was dismissed by the investigating authorities on CARDINAL October DATE on the grounds that an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations had already been conducted and they had been proved unsubstantiated .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment on appeal .

At some point , CARDINAL of the witnesses stated that he had made false statements incriminating the applicant in the course of the criminal proceedings against the latter . Thereafter the applicant attempted DATE unsuccessfully DATE to have criminal proceedings brought against that witness . In the period between CARDINAL and DATE the domestic courts dismissed complaints by the applicant concerning the investigating authorities’ decisions to dispense with criminal proceedings in that regard .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides for judicial review of decisions , acts or inaction on the part of an inquirer , investigator or prosecutor which affect constitutional rights or freedoms . The judge is empowered to verify the lawfulness and reasonableness of the decision , act or inaction and to grant the following forms of relief : ( i ) to declare the impugned decision , act or inaction unlawful or unreasonable and to order the authority concerned to remedy the violation ; or ( ii ) to dismiss the complaint .

In its ORG of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE stated that it was incumbent on judges DATE before processing an LAW complaint – to establish whether the preliminary investigation had been completed in the main case ( point CARDINAL ) . If the main case has already been sent for trial or the investigation completed , the complaint should not be examined unless it has been brought either by a person who is not a party to the main case or DATE if such a complaint is not amenable to judicial review under LAW at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings . In all other situations the complaint under LAW should be left unexamined and the complainant should be informed that he or she can raise the matter before the trial or appeal courts in the main case .

Similarly , according to ORG construction , a complaint under LAW can not be brought or pursued after the criminal case to which the complaint is connected has been submitted for trial . However , where it is established that a party to the proceedings ( including a judge or a witness ) has committed a criminal offence , thus seriously compromising the fairness of the proceedings , the LAW exceptionally allows for separate investigation of the relevant circumstances , leading to a reopening of the case ( see Decision no . CARDINALOO of CARDINAL DATE ; see also Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE and Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the town of LOC .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , Representative of GPE at ORG .

NORP The applicant is a retired person who is in receipt of an old - age pension . She is an active supporter of various local NGOs .

On DATE ORG ( « Тюменский областной профсоюзный центр PERSON ) , ORG of ORG of ORG “ NORP ” ( « PERSON городской профсоюз лифтеров PERSON ) and ORG for the protection of civil rights “ Resonance ” ( « Тюменский региональный общественный фонд по защите гражданских прав « Резонанс PERSON ) submitted notification of a public demonstration against alleged violations of rights of students and employees of the Commercial and Financial College of ORG ( “ the College ” ) . It indicated that the demonstration would be carried out in the form of a “ picket ” to be held at TIME on DATE outside the college building . The action was to end at TIME The organisers estimated that CARDINAL people would take part in this event . They undertook not to hinder the circulation of people and vehicles and not to disturb the peace .

On DATE the NORP town council informed the organisers that their request had been accepted .

The picket started at TIME as planned . It was attended mostly by oldage pensioners who gathered at the college entrance carrying their placards . The event was supervised by the police , who registered no disturbances of public order . Most of the demonstrators and the police left the location at TIME

At TIME the applicant and CARDINAL other persons of the picket entered the college building with a view to handing a petition over to the college administration .

NORP This group spontaneously asked an assistant to the head to the college to let them meet the head . The assistant informed the head of this request , who , in response , called the police .

Shortly afterwards QUANTITY police officers arrived at the place of the incident and forced the group into a police van . They were then brought to ORG of the Interior of ORG ( hereafter referred to as “ the ORG ” ) , where they were invited to explain their actions in writing .

The applicant and the other members of the group were held in the corridor of ORG . According to the applicant , she was allowed neither to contact her lawyer nor to call her family . She was then taken to an investigator ’s office where she explained the circumstances surrounding this incident . The applicant was released at TIME It appears that no record of detention was drawn up .

On DATE the head of the college submitted a request that the police prosecute the picketers for disturbing lessons at the college .

On DATE of the police officers involved in the events of DATE issued a report which read :

“ ... On DATE at TIME following a telephone call I arrived at [ the college ] . Upon arrival I found that the police had been called by [ the head of the college ] , who stated that unknown people had burst into her office and interfered with her work . These people were taken to the [ ORG ] ... for further investigation of these events ... ”

On DATE a senior investigator of ORG rejected the request of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded .

On DATE the head of the college repeated her request .

On DATE the authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of the Tyumen Region quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the authorities for an additional investigation . Without noting any specific defects in the investigation , the prosecutor concluded that it had not been thorough .

On DATE the investigating authorities refused to institute criminal proceedings . The decision read as follows :

“ ... [ The investigating authority ] established that on DATE the non - governmental organisation ORG , acting with official authorisation of the town council dated DATE , staged a public picket near the [ college ] . This event took place from TIME The demonstrators were demanding that college the authorities put an end to violations of the rights of its employees and students . After the picket [ the applicant and CARDINAL other persons of the movement ] entered the college building and went to the office of the head of the college to hand over their petition . [ The head of the college ] refused to meet them and called the police . The police officers , who arrived at the place of the incident , escorted the demonstrators to the [ ORG ] to collect their explanations in writing .

... [ In the context of the present investigation the applicant ] has refused to give any explanations to the police , noting that she had already given her statements in respect to these events to ORG .

[ The applicant ’s and other ORG actions ] did not amount to a criminal offence . ”

In the above proceedings , the applicant did not complain of the police actions of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL of the leaders of the picketers , PERSON , and CARDINAL other demonstrators including the applicant requested that a criminal investigation be instituted in respect of their arrest and detention on DATE . The applicant also brought complaints against the police officers , seeking to prosecute them for her allegedly unlawful arrest and detention . It seems that the proceedings regarding their complaints were joined together in CARDINAL case .

The investigating authorities conducted an internal investigation and drafted a report dated DATE , which read :

“ ORG of GPE , GPE of ORG of ORG , and ORG for the protection of civil rights ‘ Resonance’ informed the local administration about the picket of CARDINAL DATE , which would be held from TIME , Mr [ Kh . ] having been named as a person responsible for it .

The picket was supervised by [ CARDINAL police officers ] , who were present at its location from TIME The picketers did not disturb the peace . The police officers did not speak to them . By TIME the crowd had dispersed . At TIME the police officers returned to [ ORG ] .

On DATE [ a police officer on duty ] received a telephone call from [ the college ] . Following this call [ a group of CARDINAL police officers on duty and a driver ] arrived at [ the college ] . On their arrival they found out that the call had been made by the [ head of the college ] , who explained that several unknown persons had burst into her office and interfered with the activities of the college . She stated that she would request the prosecution of these people . Later the police officers realised that those people were the participants in the picket . [ The group ] was taken to [ ORG ] .

In ORG the police collected the statements from the [ head of the college ] , who requested that [ the group ] be prosecuted . [ CARDINAL police officers ] collected written statements from the detained parties and then let them go home . None of the detained persons was put in a special cell . Consequently , they were not deprived of their liberty .

On DATE [ the police ] refused to institute criminal proceedings at the request of the [ head of the college ] .

On the grounds given above , I would conclude that ... the [ police officers ] acted lawfully ” .

On DATE the group was notified of this decision . Neither the applicant nor other participants challenged it in court .

On an unspecified date PERSON . informed the ORG prosecutor ’s office of the allegedly unlawful police actions which had been performed in connection with the picket of DATE .

The prosecutor ’s office examined the case in parallel with the proceedings instituted by the police and held that the rights of the picketers had been violated . It issued notice of violation no . CARDINAL dated DATE which read :

“ The prosecutor ’s office has examined [ Mr Kh ’s ] request . The examination has indicated numerous violations of law in the actions of the police .

ORG , ORG of ORG of ORG SOTSPROF and ORG for the protection of civil rights ‘ Resonance’ informed the administration about the picket of CARDINAL DATE , which was to be held from TIME Initially , the picketers stood outside the entrance to the [ college ] . Later they entered the ante - room of the office of the head of the [ college ] .

Following the telephone call which was made by [ the head of the college ] , police officers arrived at the scene of the incident . The police officers took the picketers to [ ORG ] ...

Pursuant to [ the provisions of LAW ] , the police should have escorted the picketers in accordance with the provisions of either administrative or criminal law .

[ The police officer ] who escorted the picketers to ORG of the Interior of ORG drew up a report without examining the circumstances surrounding their arrest . The report is unclear as to the commission of precisely which offence the actions of the group could have amounted to .

Simultaneously [ another police officer ] received an oral request for the institution of criminal proceedings against the persons who had organised the unlawful picket near the [ college ] and disturbed the peace . This request was submitted by [ the head of the college ] .

Subsequently , the investigating authorities instituted a preliminary criminal investigation ...

In the present case the police should have conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with administrative law procedure ...

Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE entitles [ police officers ] to employ a variety of measures aimed at ensuring the conduct of administrative proceedings . In particular it gives them a right to escort persons and detain them . This power may be exercised in order to stop an administrative offence , to identify an offender , and to draw up an administrative offence record in cases where such a record can not be drawn up at the place of the incident . LAW requires the police to note the execution of an escort operation in an administrative arrest record or to make a special note in an administrative offence record . The act of escorting an individual may be also indicated in an escort operation record . This indicates that administrative proceedings have been instituted . Administrative proceedings should be finalised with a procedural decision .

The inappropriate organisation and conduct of the investigation has resulted in the violation of [ the picketer ’s rights ] .

Moreover , following the inquiry conducted under LAW , the police officers did not decide whether or not the demonstrators’ actions had amounted to an administrative offence . The deadline for bringing administrative proceedings as provided by LAW of LAW of GPE has since expired . In accordance with LAW , the administrative proceedings should be discontinued .

In the light of the above circumstances , taking into account LAW On Prosecutor ’s Office of GPE , I recommend [ to the Head of the police ] :

That the present recommendations be examined .

That an internal inquiry be carried out to decide whether a disciplinary punishment should be imposed on the police officers .

That it be ensured that all police officers study the administrative legislation ... ”

On an unspecified date the police authority notified the picketers of this decision .

On DATE , in response to the prosecutor ’s notice of violation of CARDINAL DATE , the police – having conducted an internal inquiry – fully endorsed its own previous findings and the conclusions of the report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant and the group of the protesters did not further pursue the institution of proceedings through either the police or the prosecutor ’s office .

In DATE the applicant lodged a civil complaint against the police authorities before ORG of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) . She sought a declaration that the actions of the police on DATE had been unlawful because they had breached her freedom of expression , freedom of assembly and right to liberty .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that she should substantiate her claim by providing more evidence concerning the events in question and specifying the names of the policemen involved . She should also be specific as to which actions she considered to have been unlawful . The applicant was given until DATE to correct these shortcomings in her application to the court .

On DATE ORG , at the applicant ’s request , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s case on the merits . It stated that it had no competence to deal with the applicant ’s complaints within the context of civil proceedings , since a criminal investigation in respect of the police officers had been instituted at her request . It concluded that the normal remedy for exhaustion purposes would be to appeal under LAW of the Code of the Criminal Procedure of GPE ( CCrP ) against the police ’s decision not to prosecute the police officers . Since the applicant had failed to seek recourse through this remedy , the merits of her claim were left unexamined . The relevant part of this judgment read :

“ The court has established that [ the prosecutor ’s office ] conducted a preliminary investigation into [ the applicant ’s ] arrest and her detention on the premises of ORG of the Interior of ORG on DATE . This investigation resulted in the decision not to institute criminal proceedings . All of the participants in the picket were advised of their right to challenge this decision .

LAW of the ORG sets out special rules governing appeals against the decisions of the police .

In accordance with LAW , a court must refuse to examine a claim on the merits if it can not be examined in civil proceedings .

From the foregoing , the court concludes that it must refuse to examine [ the applicant ’s ] claim on the merits ... ”

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG on appeal , essentially endorsing the reasoning of the lower court . It pointed out that the picketers had been informed of the outcome of their proceedings by the police and the prosecutor ’s office . This gave them an opportunity to challenge the relevant decisions in court under LAW of the CCrP. According to the court , they had brought a civil claim falling outside the civil courts’ jurisdiction .

The applicant did not follow the ORG recommendations and did not institute proceedings under LAW of the CCrP.

The LAW guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to hold meetings , demonstrations , marches and pickets ( DATE ) .

Decree of the Presidium of ORG no . CARDINAL-XI of DATE ( in force at the material time pursuant to NORP Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) provided that organisers of an assembly were to submit written notification to the municipal authorities DATE before the planned assembly ( § CARDINAL ) . The authority was to give its response DATE before the assembly ( § CARDINAL ) . An assembly could be banned if its purpose was contrary to the LAW or threatened public order or the security of citizens .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE of DATE ( ORG ) states that the escorting or transfer by force of an individual for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report DATE if this can not be done at the place where the offence was discovered and if the drawing - up of a report is mandatory – is to be carried out by the police . The escort operation must be carried out as quickly as possible and it must be recorded in an escort operation report , an administrative offence report or an administrative detention report . The escorted person must be given a copy of the escort operation report if he or she so requests .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that administrative arrest , that is to say a temporary restriction of liberty of an individual , may be ordered in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary for a correct and prompt examination of the administrative case .

In accordance with Article CARDINAL of the ORG the administrative arrest must be recorded in a report

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that the duration of administrative arrest must not exceed TIME , except for situations involving persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning an offence punishable by administrative detention , who may be placed under administrative arrest for a period not exceeding TIME .

Chapter CARDINAL of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which acts or decisions of a court or public official involved in criminal proceedings may be challenged . Acts or omissions of a police officer in charge of the inquiry , an investigator , a prosecutor or a court may be challenged by “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or by “ other persons in so far as the acts and decisions [ in question ] touch upon those ORG interests ” ( LAW ) . Those acts or omissions may be challenged before a prosecutor ( LAW ) . Decisions taken by police or prosecution investigators or prosecutors not to initiate criminal proceedings , or to discontinue them , or any other decision or inaction capable of impinging upon the rights of “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or of “ hindering an individual ’s access to court ” may be subject to judicial review ( LAW ) .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Eva Brems;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in PERSON in GPE in DATE . In DATE she moved to GPE in GPE ( which is QUANTITY away from PERSON ) , where she obtained a teaching degree and has been working as a school teacher for DATE .

Her sister , K.T.O. , a NORP national , also lived in GPE for a certain period of time . In DATE K.T.O. gave birth to a girl , ORG , who is also a NORP national . In DATE K.T.O. together with ORG moved to PERSON , where her parents ( the grandparents of ORG ) lived . Subsequently , the grandparents raised PERSON for about ten years .

In DATE the applicant ’s parents and ORG moved to GPE , LOC in GPE ( which is QUANTITY away from PERSON and QUANTITY away from GPE ) . In DATE ORG moved to PERSON and , since that time , has lived together with the applicant in her flat .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the mayor of PERSON appointed the applicant as the guardian of ORG , on the grounds that the child ’s parents did not take care of her .

On DATE the ORG allowed a claim by the applicant and deprived the parents of ORG of their parental rights in respect of the child , on the grounds that they had failed to take care of her for DATE . No appeal was lodged and on DATE the judgment entered into force . No information was submitted to the ORG as to whether the parents of ORG had been informed of that judgment .

In DATE K.T.O. gave birth to a boy , ORG , whose nationality was disputed by the parties . According to the material submitted by the applicant , K.T.O. , who was raising the child alone , failed to take care of him . For that reason , in DATE ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) in PERSON ordered his placement in care ( an orphanage ) . In DATE the same court ordered the child ’s return to his mother . Subsequently , ORG was taken to an orphanage on CARDINAL other occasions .

NORP The applicant claims that she and her parents visited GPE in PERSON on several occasions and maintained “ a close family link ” with him . In particular , she referred to her GPE visits in DATE and DATE and her visit in DATE . According to a copy of an undated letter from K.T.O. , the applicant visited her and GPE in PERSON DATE ( no specific dates being indicated ) , and sent them parcels with food and clothes .

In DATE PERSON was taken into care as his mother had left him alone in her flat for TIME .

On DATE the ORG deprived K.T.O. of her parental rights in respect of ORG , holding that she had not cared for him and had not played a part in his upbringing . No appeal was lodged and on DATE the judgment entered into force . No information was submitted to the ORG as to whether the parents of ORG had been informed of that judgment .

On DATE ORG was put on the list of children deprived of parental care who could be adopted . On DATE ORG of the ORG gave ORG the formal status of a child deprived of parental care .

In the meantime , on an unspecified date in DATE ORG had visited ORG to meet ORG She discovered that he had been placed in an orphanage and informed the applicant accordingly . The applicant decided to become her nephew ’s legal tutor ( a guardian for children DATE ) . She informed the Tutelage and Guardianship Service of Magadan of her wish to become a tutor , and started collecting documents and certificates to make a formal application . In particular , on DATE her flat was inspected by representatives of ORG , who found that the flat had adequate hygienic and sanitary conditions for the applicant ’s family to accommodate GPE

In DATE and DATE the applicant made a number of telephone calls to ORG PERSON and to the orphanage , asking them to take into account that she wished to become ORG ’s legal tutor , and that she was preparing the necessary documents to make a formal application .

At the applicant ’s request , ORG of Magadan sent a letter to ORG PERSON informing them that she wished to become ORG ’s legal tutor and that she had fulfilled her obligations as ORG ’s tutor . ORG of Magadan also asked ORG PERSON not to consider other candidates for the role of ORG ’s tutor .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG PERSON informed ORG of GPE that they had received the information about the applicant ’s wish to become ORG ’s legal tutor on DATE . ORG of PERSON further informed ORG of Magadan : that a couple wishing to adopt ORG had been given permission to establish contact with him prior to that date and had already submitted all the necessary documents for his adoption ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) ; that an opinion in favour of that adoption would be issued ; and that , on the basis of such an opinion , the couple would submit an adoption application to ORG in PERSON ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) . Lastly , ORG PERSON noted that the applicant had the right to lodge a tutelage application with the same court , and advised her to do so “ as soon as possible ” .

On DATE the Tutelage and Guardianship Service of GPE issued an opinion stating that , given her personal situation and qualities , the applicant could become a legal tutor or guardian .

On DATE the applicant went to PERSON , mainly to initiate procedures with a view to becoming ORG ’s tutor and to meet him there . Ultimately , this was not possible , as he had been adopted by ORG and ORG prior to her arrival in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the NORP authorities refused to help her to meet ORG

On DATE a married couple , ORG and ORG , who were on the list of persons wishing to adopt a child , were allowed to meet with ORG at the orphanage .

On DATE they informed ORG that they wished to adopt ORG and asked it to issue an opinion in favour of the adoption .

On DATE ORG of PERSON , acting in the exercise of its childcare related functions , issued an opinion in favour of the requested adoption . According to the committee , ORG and ORG were physically fit and had sufficient funds and facilities to accommodate and take care of ORG They had established contact and a good relationship with the child and , according to the orphanage ’s psychologist , the child wished to live in their family , although he could not give written consent as “ he did n’t understand what adoption was because of his age ” . It was also noted : that the child had a CARDINAL - sister and an aunt who lived in GPE ; that in DATE and DATE the applicant and the GPE authorities , respectively , had informed ORG of her wish to become the child ’s legal tutor ; that the applicant had been informed in reply that she could lodge an application for tutelage with a district court ; and that no such application had been lodged . Lastly , the opinion read that , generally , adoption was “ the preferred form of [ a child ’s ] placement ” , and that , in the present case , the adoption would be appropriate and in the interests of the child .

On DATE S.S.V. and S.O.V. lodged an adoption application in respect of ORG with ORG .

On DATE ORG , having examined the case at a closed hearing with the participation of ORG and ORG and representatives from ORG and the orphanage , delivered a judgment granting the adoption . It also ordered that ORG ’s surname be changed to that of the adoptive parents and that ORG and ORG be registered respectively as his father and mother instead of his biological parents .

The court essentially relied on the information contained in the opinion of ORG of PERSON . The court held that the requested adoption was in the interests of the child in being raised in “ stable life conditions and in [ an atmosphere of ] harmony ” .

The applicant was informed of the judgment of DATE following a delay , though she did not specify how long the delay had been .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against that judgment , stating that it had violated her right to become her close relative ’s legal tutor and her right to submit arguments against the adoption . In particular , the applicant argued : ( i ) that ORG had failed to take into account the fact that ORG had close relatives , his CARDINAL - sister and aunt , who had not been informed of the proceedings and had not taken part in them ; ( ii ) that ORG had not checked ORG ’s nationality ; ( iii ) that ORG was a NORP national , as his biological mother had been a NORP national at the time when he had been born in DATE ; ( iv ) that the procedure provided for in GPE ’s relevant international treaties in relation to the adoption of foreign nationals had not been followed ; and ( v ) that ORG had disregarded the fact that she had informed ORG of her wish to become ORG ’s legal tutor and the fact that she had been preparing the necessary documents for this .

On DATE K.L.S. sent a letter to ORG stating that she and the rest of her family ( notably her grandparents and the applicant ) had a close connection with ORG and that he wished to live with them .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s appeal on the grounds that the judgment did not concern her right or interest in becoming the child ’s legal tutor , or any obligations in that regard which in principle could be the subject matter of a separate claim .

The applicant appealed in cassation , mainly arguing that ORG had failed to examine her arguments and that she had been deprived of access to a court , in violation of the procedural rules .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s cassation appeal on the basis that it had not been demonstrated that the contested decision of ORG was unlawful .

According to the applicant ’s submissions of CARDINAL DATE , on an unspecified date K.T.O. left GPE for GPE and she currently resides with her parents ( the grandparents of GPE ) in GPE .

In DATE the Government submitted a copy of a verbatim record of an interview with ORG which had been carried out by the childcare service in the locality where he had lived with ORG and S.O.V. on DATE . According to that record , the child , inter alia , expressed the wish to continue living with his adoptive parents , who were present during the interview , and said that he had no aunt or uncle . The applicant contended that this information could not be accepted , as it had not been checked with her participation and contradicted other material in the case file .