Violation of Article 2 - Right to life;Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

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

The applicants are the parents of PERSON , who was born in DATE .

The latter was detained in the psychiatric wing of FAC on CARDINAL occasions , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , that is to say for a total period of DATE . On both occasions he benefited from discharges on probation .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private session , once again ordered the detention of the ORG son under DATE ORG in respect of ORG , Habitual Offenders and LAW as amended by act of DATE ( “ the Social Protection Act ” ) . During his detention in the psychiatric wing of PERSON he was the subject of several disciplinary measures owing to his aggressive attitude to staff and other detainees .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered his discharge on probation and made him subject to medico - social supervision by attaching a number de conditions to his provisional discharge .

By order of CARDINAL DATE , owing to his non - compliance with his conditions of discharge , ORG with ORG decided to return the ORG son to the psychiatric wing of FAC . PERSON was arrested on that same date and detained for insulting and threatening CARDINAL police officers .

On his arrival at the police station TIME , he was examined by a general practitioner before being transferred in TIME to FAC , where he was examined by PERSON , who prescribed a sedative and a sleeping tablet .

NORP The applicants’ son was then placed in an individual cell in an ordinary section of FAC .

The course of events as set out below was established following the judicial investigation and proceedings and is undisputed by the parties .

At TIME DATE PERSON was presented before the Deputy Director of PERSON for his interview as a new arrival . After the interview , the Deputy Director decided to implement special security measures for DATE . Those measures were adopted owing to PERSON nervous , agitated state and because he considered his detention to be arbitrary and was demanding his release . The following special security measures were ordered : placement in an individual cell , individual access to the prison yard , receiving visits in a booth rather than in the collective visiting area , use of plastic knives and forks , opening of the cell only by heads of section accompanied by CARDINAL prison officers , accompaniment by a member of staff during the detainee ’s movements and implementation of special surveillance involving checks on the cell by a prison officer TIME to ensure that nothing abnormal was happening .

Prison officer NORP , who had accompanied PERSON since his return to prison , was instructed to inform him of those special security measures in his capacity as head of section acting as a prison assistant . He was accompanied by CARDINAL other officers , PERSON and NORP

On their arrival in the cell at TIME , PERSON was just finishing his lunch . NORP read out the special security measures ordered by the Director . According to NORP – as confirmed by PERSON and NORP – PERSON provoked him by deliberately sneezing ( or “ spitting ” , according to the Government ) on him . When PERSON told the detainee to stop his provocative behaviour , otherwise he would be moved to an isolation cell , PERSON moved up to him and placed his head so close to R. ’s that all CARDINAL officers thought that they was about to be attacked .

In view of PERSON reaction and his previous history , NORP decided to place him in an isolation cell . He seized PERSON by the scruff of his neck and NORP grabbed his shoulder in order to whisk him out of the cell .

R. explained that owing to the exiguity of the cell , he was unable to maintain his grip on the back of the detainee ’s neck and he decided to resort to a different stranglehold technique , which involved an “ armlock ” around the detainee ’s neck , while forcing him down to the ground . When PERSON was face - down on the floor , he was still immobilised in an armlock by NORP , who was also leaning his full weight on the upper part of his back . PERSON had allegedly then complained that he could not get any air and was suffocating . L. blocked the detainee ’s right arm ; his left arm was already blocked under L ’s body . Finally , NORP squatted on top of the detainee .

Reinforcements were called in , and several more officers arrived on the spot . A total of CARDINAL officers were now present . Some of them helped with keeping PERSON under control while others remained passive . PERSON was handcuffed and shackles were placed on his ankles .

He was then lifted to his feet to be transported by CARDINAL officers , including NORP , to the isolation cell . The ORG witness statements diverge on PERSON ability to talk and breathe on his way to the cell . However , they all agree that they had to drag him along , supporting him under the shoulders and then carrying him , and that his head was hanging down . The officers noted that he had urinated on himself . They had to carry him down CARDINAL or so steps to reach the isolation cell .

On arrival at the door to the isolation cell , the officers placed PERSON face down on the floor owing to the narrowness of the door , and dragged him inside . Once they were inside the isolation cell they turned him over , only to note that his face was cyanotic .

At TIME the prison nurse received a telephone call to inform her that PERSON was unconscious . She alerted the duty doctor and prepared the medical equipment .

When the nurse and the duty doctor arrived at the inner security gate of the prison , an officer , who had been a witness to the events , informed them that the “ service CARDINAL ” ( the medical emergency service ) and the ORG ( emergency ambulance service ) had been called at TIME A transcription of the call is included in the case file .

Pending the arrival of those services , the duty doctor and the prison nurse began a cardiac massage at TIME , having noted that PERSON was not breathing and had no pulse .

The “ service CARDINAL ” paramedics arrived at TIME However , they noted that the ORG had not been contacted , and decided to request its emergency intervention . A “ service CARDINAL ” nurse subsequently stated that they had been called for a straightforward assault and had therefore not been informed of the gravity of the situation .

The ORG arrived at TIME and PERSON was immediately intubated and put on a drip . However , the doctor could only note that in the absence of electrical activity it was pointless to continue the attempts at resuscitation .

PERSON death was recorded at TIME

An inquiry was immediately instigated ex officio . The forensic pathologist instructed by ORG travelled to the scene of the events at TIME on DATE and noted very extensive cyanosis of the face and the neck region , and the presence of food products in the region of the nostrils and mouth .

All the main witnesses were heard on DATE or in the ensuing days .

At his first hearing on DATE , NORP stated the following , as regards the prison ORG intervention :

“ PERSON arrived in prison DATE in a state of high nervous tension . In fact the police officers accompanying him described him as very dangerous .

On arrival PERSON was very worked up against the police . We took over and he calmed down .

We knew PERSON from his previous detention , and so , for security reasons we placed him in an individual cell in the CARDINALth section , cell no . CARDINAL . According to my information he did n’t cause any trouble during TIME .

TIME PERSON went to see Director [ H. ] for the ‘ incomer ’s PERSON , as for every new arrival .

I was present during this interview in the office used for that purpose .

PERSON started shouted about the police officers , calling them disabled and claiming it was their fault he was there .

The Director explained that he had to visit the ORG ( ORG ) . PERSON replied that he did not have to wait around and that he was going to fetch his keys in the cloakroom and leave . When we told him that was impossible , he threatened us with the words ‘ you ’ll get what ’s coming to you’ .

Knowing that PERSON had a capricious and unforeseeable character and had already attacked officers in the past , the Director imposed special measures on him such as an individual cell , opening the cell door by several officers , using plastic knives and forks , etc .

He was taken back to his cell by a number of officers , without incident .

Where special measures are ordered , they must be entered in writing and signed by the detainee .

At TIME I went to his cell accompanied by [ L. , NORP and C. ] . PERSON was eating when we went in .

When I explained the measures to him , PERSON got up and pretended to sneeze , spitting some of his dinner ( vol - au - vent ) in my face . I stepped back . PERSON moved towards me and started sneezing again .

I immediately told him to calm down and to spit somewhere else . He moved towards me again . I told him that if he did not calm down he would be moved to the isolation cell . He came right up to me , with his head against mine , and said ‘ I ’d like to see you doing that’ . I then grabbed him by the neck in order to force him to the ground and take him to the isolation cell . I should point out that I got him in an armlock before pushing him off balance .

My colleagues were holding him by the arms and legs . We called for reinforcements . While I was holding him I spoke to him and he answered ‘ I ’m choking’ . I relaxed my hold and told him that if he could talk he was not choking .

PERSON was gesticulating with his arms and legs . I would specify that I fell to the ground with PERSON and he was on his side . In the end I was no longer holding him around the neck but exerting pressure on his head .

The reinforcements arrived and we managed to handcuff him . We lifted him to his feet in order to take him to the isolation cell . The reinforcements took charge of PERSON , and I started following them up near the rotunda after I PERSON got my breath back . PERSON was no longer protesting , relaxing to the extent that the officers had to carry him . Arriving at the cell I realised that PERSON was not pretending , as his face was turning blue . We called the infirmary and also the ORG . Dr [ L. ] was at the prison , and PERSON was given first aid , including artificial respiration , for TIME . He was also defibrillated . I stayed beside the doctor the whole time . The ambulance arrived and I stayed in the cell to help them . When the ORG arrived I left the cell and waited in the corridor . From what I heard it was already too late . They had n’t managed to resuscitate him . ”

Later on the same day NORP was questioned again , and he added the following statement :

“ I would point out that during my explanation of the reasons for the [ special security ] measures I noticed the expression in PERSON eyes changing and becoming more threatening , such that I was already on my guard when he got up .

When he was there with his forehead pressed against mine , I moved aside and got him in an armlock , that is I placed my right arm around his neck and fell to the ground with him . You ask me if I exerted pressure on his neck , and I would reply that I did not press on the front of his throat . Once we were on the floor on the corridor side of the cell door I reduced the pressure . When he started to struggle again I exerted a small amount of pressure and slackened it immediately . In any case he was talking to me , as I mentioned in my first statement .

We have not been trained in restraining detainees in critical situations . Following the events at GPE we were given ‘ conflict management GPE , learning how to manage a conflict by talking , and especially how to prevent things getting out of hand . My answer to your question is that in the event of an attack by a detainee we just have to do our best to restrain him . ”

Officer NORP made the following statement :

“ We pinned PERSON to the ground . ... I did n’t hear PERSON speaking , but I think he was trying to talk but nothing came out . ... On the way to the isolation cell I did n’t hear him talking or complaining . ... I think he was still alive because several times I felt resistance in his arm . ”

Dr B. carried out the autopsy DATE , on DATE . The autopsy report of CARDINAL DATE concluded that the manoeuvres on his neck had caused injuries deep enough to fracture the right upper horn of the thyroid cartilage and that those injuries had been prolonged , because symptoms of asphyxiation had been observed . The report added that the loss of urine reported by the investigators pointed to the moment when the loss of consciousness became so deep as to inhibit the sphincter reflex mechanism . Such an inhibition could be observed , for instance , during the unconscious phases occurring in epileptic episodes . As regards the “ armlock ” restraint technique , the autopsy report stated :

“ During the compression exerted by a forearm ( acting as a lever , with the person standing behind the victim ) , the lethal mechanism is virtually identical to traditional manual strangulation .

Such particularly severe compression causes a bilateral vascular obstruction and a flattening of the upper respiratory channels against the cervical vertebrae . ”

An investigation was instigated on DATE against persons unknown on charges of grievous bodily harm having led to unintentional death . The applicants applied to join the proceedings as civil parties .

The reconstruction of the events led PERSON , who had carried out the autopsy , to the conclusion that the cervical manoeuvres had been caused by the armlock applied by NORP , while the weight applied by PERSON on PERSON thorax had had a negative effect on the latter ’s respiratory mechanism and been conducive to asphyxia , his respiration being further hindered by the manner in which he had been transported to the isolation cell .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG committed the CARDINAL accused , that is to say NORP , PERSON and NORP , for trial before ORG on charges of grievous bodily harm having led to unintentional death .

At DATE hearing before ORG , PERSON submitted that it was not impossible that the detainee ’s fall to the ground had produced the force leading to the fracture of the right upper horn of the thyroid cartilage and that it had been quite possible that the armlock had on its own been sufficient to bring about the fatal outcome . He was , however , unable to affirm that if the strangulation had ceased after the thyroid cartilage had been broken PERSON would have been able to breathe again normally and survive , since the outcome would have depended on the injuries sustained previously . Furthermore , PERSON took the view that the compression of the thorax and the fact that PERSON had been carried to the isolation cell were not , in themselves , sufficient to have caused his death . Finally , he confirmed that the version of events provided by NORP during the reconstruction had been compatible with the medical findings .

On DATE ORG acquitted NORP The court held that NORP ’s intervention had indisputably been a matter of self - defence , which ruled out any responsibility on his part . Having regard to PERSON personality and his nervous , agitated state , NORP could reasonably have feared an imminent serious attack against PERSON and himself . The accused ’s reaction had therefore been absolutely necessary . The court accordingly considered that NORP had react proportionately to the attack by applying a hold which he had learnt during training in the management of that kind of incident , and in respect of which nothing in the case file suggested that it had been wrongly executed . Subsequently , the continuation of the armlock had been equally justified and proportional in view of the fact that PERSON had continued to struggle . According to the court , there was no objective evidence to suggest that the accused ’s actions had been dangerous , or that NORP had used force not strictly necessary for the execution of the restraint technique . There was no indication that NORP had known , or should have known , about the risk of fracture of the thyroid cartilage since that risk was not mentioned in the training programmes included in the case file ; nor could he have been aware that in maintaining the hold he had been exacerbating the decrease in the oxygenation of PERSON blood , particularly since NORP had not known what his colleagues were doing . Moreover , the court considered that NORP must not have been alarmed by the detainee ’s reactions since he had continued to struggle and NORP had regularly relaxed his grip to let him breathe . There was no evidence that the accused had noticed any change in the detainee ’s voice resulting from the fracture of the thyroid cartilage , nor , in any event , that they could have connected that putative change with any risk to PERSON physical integrity .

L. and NORP were also acquitted under the rules on co - perpetration .

Moreover , ORG relinquished jurisdiction for determining the applications for civil - party status owing to the accused ’s acquittal .

The applicants , as civil parties , appealed against the judgment as regards its civil - law provisions . The prosecution did not follow suit . The appeal has been pending before ORG since DATE . The ORG submitted that the applicants had not requested notification of the hearing such as to facilitate adjudication of the civil - law interests .

On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint , together with an application to join the proceedings as civil parties , against the CARDINAL acquitted prison officers and CARDINAL of their colleagues for failure to assist a person in danger .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private session , declared inadmissible the application to join the proceedings as civil parties to the extent that it concerned the CARDINAL prison officers acquitted by judgment of ORG on DATE on the grounds that the facts were identical to those of the first set of criminal proceedings , and gave a discontinuance decision in respect of the other CARDINAL accused on the grounds that the investigation had not uncovered sufficient evidence against them .

On DATE the applicants further filed an action for damages before ORG of First Instance seeking a finding that ORG had been responsible for PERSON death and for the suffering which he had sustained owing to his placement in an ordinary cell instead of in the psychiatric wing of LOC .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of First Instance declared the claim inadmissible as being time - barred .

Furthermore , the Government submitted that the applicants had complained about the same facts in GPE , PERSON country of origin , and that that complaint had given rise to letters rogatory addressed to ORG by the NORP public prosecutor of the town of GPE . On DATE the NORP authorities had allegedly sent a scanned copy of the criminal case file to the NORP judicial authorities .

The applicants , however , denied ever having brought proceedings in GPE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

A third person , PERSON , owned a plot of land , a part of which , with her consent , was separated by a fence and used by another person , J.

On DATE PERSON concluded an agreement with PERSON , according to which she gave a part of her plot of land , measuring CARDINAL sq . m. , to him . It appears that the plot of land actually used by J. , as separated by the fence , was CARDINAL sq . m. bigger than the CARDINAL sq . m. plot given by PERSON The CARDINAL sq . m. also belonged to PERSON In this connection , another agreement was reached between PERSON and PERSON , according to which PERSON gave her consent for J. to become the owner of the whole plot of land used by him . However , it appears that J. ’s ownership rights were officially registered only in respect of the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m.

On DATE the applicant bought the larger plot of land from J. and , since the fence was still in place , continued to use also the QUANTITY m. strip of land .

In DATE PERSON instituted proceedings against the applicant , seeking to take the CARDINAL sq . m. strip of land used by the applicant , claiming her ownership rights .

On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE granted the claim , ordering the applicant to release the strip of land to PERSON

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal .

NORP On DATE ORG granted the appeal and dismissed PERSON ’s claim . In particular , ORG found that since PERSON had agreed that PERSON become the owner of the plot of land used by him , as separated by the fence , she had relinquished her rights in respect of the strip of land in favour of ORG and , consequently , in favour of the applicant .

This judgment was subject to appeal on points of law within DATE from the date of its delivery .

On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE with ORG , claiming that it had been adopted in violation of substantive and procedural law . As a ground for admitting her appeal on points of law , PERSON submitted , pursuant to LAW , that the violations of the substantive and procedural law might have grave consequences , such as deprivation of her ownership rights in respect of the plot of land .

On DATE amendments were introduced to the ORG which stipulated that there was no right to bring an appeal on points of law more than once , unless ORG – when returning an appeal – fixed a time - limit to correct and re - submit it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG decided to return PERSON ’s appeal as inadmissible for lack of merit . The reasons provided were as follows :

“ ORG of ORG ... having examined the question of admitting [ PERSON ’s appeal lodged against the judgment of ORG of DATE ] , found that it must be returned for the following reasons :

Pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of [ the ORG ] an appeal on points of law must contain any of the grounds [ required by ] LAW of [ the ORG ] .

At the same time , ORG does not find it appropriate to fix a timelimit for correcting the shortcomings and lodging the appeal anew . ”

This decision entered into force from the moment of its delivery and was not subject to appeal .

On DATE PERSON lodged another appeal on points of law with ORG against the judgment of ORG of DATE , alleging violations of substantive and procedural law . As a ground for admitting her appeal PERSON indicated , in addition to the ground mentioned in her appeal of CARDINAL DATE , that the judicial act to be adopted by ORG on her case might have a significant impact on the uniform application of the law , and that the contested judgment of ORG contradicted a judicial act previously adopted by ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to admit the appeal for examination . The reasons provided were as follows :

“ [ The appeal ] must be admitted for examination since it satisfies the requirements of LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of [ the ORG ] . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a reply to PERSON ’s appeal with ORG where , inter alia , he stated that the admission of PERSON ’s second appeal by ORG was in violation of the principle of res judicata and his property rights . When ORG , by its decision of DATE , had returned PERSON ’s appeal without fixing a timelimit to correct any shortcomings and to re - submit the appeal , the judgment of ORG of DATE became final and binding .

On DATE ORG examined PERSON ’s appeal on the merits and decided to grant it partially by quashing the judgment of ORG of DATE in its part related to ORG ’s property claim in respect of the plot of land and remitting the case for a fresh examination . ORG found that ORG , when reaching its conclusions , had failed to take into account an expert opinion which was among the materials of the case file , as well as to indicate the provisions of the domestic law on which its judgment had been based .

On DATE ORG of Erebuni and ORG of GPE conducted a fresh examination of PERSON ’s claim and granted it by recognising PERSON ’s ownership rights in respect of the strip of land in question .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the judgment of ORG .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time) (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Split .

The applicant is the owner of a commercial building in ORG , which he uses as a car repair workshop . The building in issue was bought from the ORG in DATE . At the time of purchase , no limitation on its use was registered or apparent .

On DATE ORG for ORG ( ORG kulture , PERSON zaštitu kulturne baštine , GPE odjel u PERSON , hereafter “ the ORG ” ) ordered a measure of preventive protection relating to cultural heritage with regard to the applicant ’s building , pending the final evaluation of its cultural value . It explained that the building , which was being used as a car repair workshop at that point , appeared to be a rare example of early industrial architecture in ORG , and therefore this warranted a measure limiting its use by the applicant . Under section CARDINAL of ORG ( Zakon o zaštiti i očuvanju kulturnih dobara , hereafter “ LAW ” ) the measure would remain in place for DATE , and , in accordance with LAW of the same LAW , would afford the same protection as a final protective measure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The decision ordering the preventive protection was not transmitted to the applicant . It was forwarded to the land registry of ORG ( PERSON ) and duly registered in the land register .

On DATE , after the expiry of the DATE period , ORG again ordered a measure of preventive protection with regard to the applicant ’s commercial building , reiterating the same grounds as those specified in its previous decision .

The applicant was not informed of the above decision relating to the second measure of preventive protection in respect of his building . On DATE the measure was registered in the land register .

On DATE , after becoming aware of the second measure of preventive protection following an enquiry with the land registry , the applicant challenged the extended application of that measure before ORG ( ORG culture , hereafter “ the Ministry ” ) . He contended , in particular , that he had not been informed of the decision ordering the preventive protection , and that the protection could no longer be ordered , since the maximum duration of such a measure under LAW was DATE . The applicant also enquired about compensation in respect of the pecuniary damage he had sustained as a result of the measure of preventive protection .

On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant ’s appeal to ORG . It stressed that the decision of DATE extending the preventive protection after the expiry of the first DATE period had been necessary , owing to the fact that it had not been possible to obtain an excerpt from the land register from ORG , and that the building represented an important example of early industrial architecture in Split .

On DATE the Ministry dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as unfounded , on the grounds that there was nothing in the law preventing the competent authority from applying the measure twice for periods of DATE , and that the measure of preventive protection had not limited the applicant ’s ownership rights . It also pointed out that it was necessary to extend the preventive protection in respect of the building , as the determination of its heritage value required further comprehensive assessment .

On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action in ORG ( ORG ) , challenging the lawfulness and reasonableness of the measure of preventive protection , and emphasising the passivity of the competent authorities in finally resolving the matter . He also contended that the decisions of the lower authorities had been arbitrary . He pointed out that , contrary to what ORG had stated , his ownership rights had been significantly limited , as his freedom to deal with the property as he wished had been restricted . In particular , his several attempts to sell the building and set up another business cooperation had failed , owing to the existing preventive protection . The applicant also asked ORG to award him MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of the damage he had sustained as a result of the conduct of the administrative authorities .

Meanwhile , ORG found that the applicant ’s building should not be registered as an object of cultural heritage . On DATE , after the expiry of the measure of preventive protection , ORG ordered that the entry concerning the measure be deleted from the land register .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s administrative action as unfounded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower authorities . In particular , it pointed out that there had been solid evidence suggesting that the building was an important object of cultural heritage , and that the measure of preventive protection was therefore justified given the need to carry out further assessments . Moreover , ORG considered that nothing in the relevant domestic law prevented the adoption of the second decision on preventive protection following the expiry of the first DATE time - limit .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , complaining of a violation of his property rights under LAW with regard to the allegedly unlawful and unreasonable application of the measure of preventive protection in respect of his property .

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


CASE OF PALEVIČIŪTĖ AND DZIDZEVIČIENĖ v. LITHUANIA

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;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants are sisters , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and ORG .

On DATE the national authorities issued a decision to restore the applicants’ father ’s property rights in respect of a plot of land measuring CARDINAL hectares . His property rights were registered on DATE .

Following their father ’s death on DATE , the applicants were issued with a certificate of inheritance on DATE and inherited his property in equal parts . CARDINAL plots of land measuring CARDINAL hectares and QUANTITY respectively were returned to them in natura . These plots were marked out in DATE , but an engineer did not indicate in the plan that there was a house situated on the plot of land of QUANTITY that did not belong to the applicants .

On DATE ORG bought a house and a storehouse . The cadastral measurements of the house were taken in DATE , and the building was classified as residential . The plot of land under the house and for residential purposes measured QUANTITY , and although ORG did not buy the land on which the house stood , he used it . On DATE ORG , who was PERSON ’s mother , had her property rights restored , and transferred her plot of land of QUANTITY to the place where ORG house was located . PERSON , as ORG ’s heir , asked for the plot of land of QUANTITY to be entered into the land registry in his name . However , his request was refused by the national authorities , because that plot overlapped the applicants’ land .

NORP In DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) stated that the applicants’ father ’s rights had been restored in respect of the land under the buildings that did not belong to him . The ORG also explained that , if there was no dispute , the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could be amended and the borders of CARDINAL of the applicants’ plots of land could be changed as well ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . If there was a dispute , the ORG would initiate court proceedings in order to annul part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicants were given until DATE to reply in writing to the ORG ’s proposal . The applicants did not agree with the ORG ’s proposal .

In DATE ORG held that domestic law did not allow the restoration of property rights to land under buildings owned by third parties . As a result , the documents restoring the property rights of the applicants’ father had to be amended .

As there was a dispute , the ORG asked a prosecutor to start court proceedings . In DATE the prosecutor lodged a claim with ORG and asked it to annul part of the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) restoring the property rights of the applicants’ father in respect of QUANTITY of land , and the relevant part of the succession document issued to the applicants .

On DATE the ORG allowed the prosecutor ’s application , indicated that the part of the decision of DATE regarding the CARDINAL hectares had to be annulled , and held that a plot of land of QUANTITY had to be demarcated for ORG The applicants’ property rights would be protected by giving them an equivalent plot of land in another area . It appears that the court suggested several times that the parties conclude a friendly settlement agreement , but the applicants refused .

The applicants appealed . They claimed , among other things , that the prosecutor had missed the DATE time - limit for lodging a claim .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the court of first instance . The court held that the prosecutor had only found out about the situation at issue on DATE , and had lodged the complaint on DATE , thus the time - limit for lodging a claim had not been missed . The court further held that the plot of land that ORG had been using had been formed back in DATE when the buildings had belonged to ORG , and that the applicants had signed the documents and agreed with the borders of the plot under the buildings . The court also held that the restitution of property was a matter of public interest , because it not only related to specific individuals , but to public opinion in general ( formuoja visos visuomenės nuomonę ) . The property rights of land owners were not absolute , and in the case at issue the lawful interests of CARDINAL party had to be protected .

The applicants submitted an appeal on points of law , and on DATE ORG sent the case back to ORG for fresh examination , stating that the lower courts had not examined the factual circumstances regarding how big the plot of land had to be in order for the buildings to be used . ORG also held that ORG should assess the fact that no plot of land under the buildings had been demarcated at the time the applicants’ father ’s property rights had been restored .

On DATE ORG sent the case back to the court of first instance for fresh examination , stating that the substance of the case had not been examined thoroughly . The court held that CARDINAL of the buildings belonging to ORG had previously been a school building , but since DATE it had been registered in the register of immovable property as a residential building . The court observed that some mistakes had been made in the process of restoring both PERSON ’s mother ’s and the applicants’ father ’s property rights . The court further held that the conclusion of ORG that PERSON was entitled to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY was unfounded . Although there were some buildings on the land that had been returned to the applicants’ father , the exact size of the plot necessary in order for the buildings to be used had not been determined . Moreover , although the applicants and ORG had provided some evidence , this was insufficient to prove that the size of the plot of land under the buildings had to be QUANTITY . Lastly , ORG obliged the parties to the proceedings to provide documents proving how big the plot of land had to be in order for ORG ’s buildings to be used .

On DATE the ORG established that ORG ’s buildings were on the plot of land measuring QUANTITY . The court also held that ORG was using the exact plot which had been marked out for ORG , and the plan of the land had been signed by the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court considered that the person who had measured the land for the applicants had not marked the house in that area , and had not taken any actions to find out who the owner of the house was ; therefore , he was the person who had made a mistake . The court noted that in fact QUANTITY overlapped the applicants’ land , but as PERSON was not asking for this , QUANTITY of land had to be taken from the applicants . Lastly , although the QUANTITY of land had to be taken away from the applicants , their property rights had to be protected by providing them with a new plot of land of equivalent value in another place .

The applicants appealed , and on DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE . The court held that , although the applicants claimed that ORG house was not a residential building and thus no land for residential purposes could exist , the data from the register of immovable property and the purchase agreements showed that the building was a residential building . The court also held that the applicants’ father ’s property rights to the land under the buildings at issue could not have been restored , as those were not his buildings . In fact , since DATE the relevant documents had referred to there being a plot of land of QUANTITY near the buildings .

The applicants submitted numerous appeals on points of law , but they were dismissed by ORG on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE as either not raising important legal issues or being repetitive .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicants explaining that the legal registration in respect of their plot of land of CARDINAL hectares had been annulled following the decisions of the domestic courts , and asked them to choose the means by which they wanted their property rights in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY to be restored . ORG noted that the restoration of property rights in natura was not possible .

NORP In DATE CARDINAL of the applicants wrote to ORG and asked for the return of the plot of CARDINAL hectares in natura . She also claimed that PERSON was using the plot of land for residential purposes unlawfully and that she had sustained damage .

In DATE ORG informed the applicant that she could start court proceedings for damages . ORG also explained that the purchase agreement in respect of ORG ’s buildings was valid , and that , in accordance with the decisions of the domestic courts , PERSON was entitled to use the plot of land under the buildings .

In DATE ORG replied to a request by CARDINAL of the applicants in DATE for an explanation of the actions of ORG of ORG and compensation in respect of pecuniary damage . ORG stated that the applicants were aware of the court proceedings regarding the decision of CARDINAL DATE to restore their father ’s property rights . It also held that PERSON was entitled to buy the plot of land for residential purposes located under the buildings from the ORG .

NORP In DATE PERSON was included into the list of candidates to buy a plot of land of QUANTITY and on DATE , after some measurements had been carried out , the plot of land of QUANTITY was sold to ORG

In DATE ORG replied to a complaint by CARDINAL of the applicants about the restoration of her father ’s property rights . Among many other things , the applicant asked for : the process of amending the borders of their plot of land to be terminated ; ORG to be prohibited from constructing buildings and growing plants ; his property to be kept on the plot of land at issue ; an opportunity to buy the plot of land that had been taken from them ; and an easement under ORG ’s buildings to be established . ORG indicated that such a request had already been dismissed by the domestic courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was impossible to allow the applicants to buy the same plot of land that had been taken from them , because that plot of QUANTITY had not belonged to their father in the first place . In addition , PERSON was not stating that he wanted an easement to be established , thus the applicant ’s request in this respect was unfounded .

The applicants complained to a member of the ORG , who sent their complaint to ORG . The member of the Seimas asked for explanations about the procedure for restoring the applicants’ property rights and why their property rights to the QUANTITY of land had not been restored . In DATE ORG of ORG explained that the applicants’ property rights to the plot of land of CARDINAL hectares had been annulled in accordance with the decisions of the domestic courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In DATE the applicants had been asked to choose the means by which they wished their property rights in respect of the QUANTITY of land to be restored ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but they still insisted on having the land returned in natura ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which was not possible . ORG of ORG also provided detailed information about monetary compensation as a means of restoring the applicants’ property rights . The monetary compensation procedure could be started after the applicants submitted a request for their property rights to be restored by means of monetary compensation . As a preliminary estimate , the value of the plot at issue was estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) .

In DATE ORG of ORG once again informed the applicants that returning the CARDINAL hectares of land in natura was not possible and that they could have monetary compensation . The applicants were also informed that the procedure could be started after a request to restore their property rights by means of monetary compensation was received by the authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The preliminary estimate as to the value of the plot was also indicated as being EUR CARDINAL . It appears that the applicants did not reply to this letter , nor did they submit a request for monetary compensation , but ORG calculated the compensation at ORG CARDINAL after having adjusted it in line with the inflation index , and on DATE invited the applicants to come and discuss the restoration of their property rights . The meeting was adjourned once until DATE because the applicants’ lawyer had holidays planned . On DATE the applicants’ lawyer asked to adjourn the meeting again because CARDINAL of the applicants was ill , but she did not provide any documents confirming this . ORG decided to hold a meeting as planned on DATE , and issued a decision to restore the applicants’ property rights to the QUANTITY of land by paying them monetary compensation of ORG CARDINAL . CARDINAL of the applicants collected the decision on DATE . The decision was not appealed against .

In DATE CARDINAL of the applicants asked a prosecutor to start a pre - trial investigation into ORG ’s actions . According to her , PERSON was using land to which he had no rights . In DATE the prosecutor decided to terminate the pre - trial investigation , as there was no evidence of a criminal act . That decision was upheld by a higher prosecutor in DATE and by ORG and ORG in DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicants asked for interim measures to be applied and for PERSON to be prohibited from constructing buildings , temporary constructions and roads , and from growing plants and farming on the plot of land at issue . Their application was dismissed by ORG and ORG in DATE and DATE respectively .

On an unspecified date CARDINAL of the applicants started court proceedings regarding the cadastral measurements of the land . The applicant also claimed that ORG had acquired his building unlawfully and that he had been using her land without any legal grounds . On DATE ORG held that the applicant ’s allegations had already been rejected by the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also stated that the cadastral plan proposed by the applicant was not approved , because she had included ORG ’s land on it and marked it as hers . As a result , the applicant ’s complaint was dismissed .

In DATE the applicants initiated civil proceedings regarding the change of purpose of CARDINAL of the buildings belonging to ORG They claimed that ORG house had previously been a school , and thus its purpose was communal and not residential . In DATE ORG dismissed their claim . In DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision , and in DATE and DATE ORG dismissed appeals by the applicants on points of law .


Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , PERSON . He is the uncle of PERSON , who was born in DATE . Mr PERSON parents and brother died in a car accident in DATE .

ORG are disputed by the parties .

At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON and his friend PERSON I.D. left a computer club in PERSON . While they were walking down FAC , QUANTITY PERSON minivans with heavily tinted windows and without number plates pulled over and a group of men armed with assault rifles and pistols emerged from the vehicles . CARDINAL of the armed men wore plain clothes , while the others were in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas . Without identifying themselves or giving any explanation they pointed their guns at Mr PERSON and Mr I.D. and opened fire . Mr PERSON ran away . The armed men pursued him and continued shooting .

NORP In FAC , in the presence of a number of local residents , including PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON . PERSON . , Mr PERSON was hit by a car and fell to the ground . He got up and limped into the courtyard of the adjacent nursery school . A man from the car which had hit Mr PERSON ran after him and fired at him several times with his pistol . Mr PERSON fell to the ground face down . Several other armed men ran towards the scene and CARDINAL of them fired at Mr PERSON several times while he was on the ground . After having ascertained that Mr PERSON was dead , CARDINAL of the armed men lifted his body and placed an object under it .

Shortly thereafter a group of officers of the local police and the special police force ( PERSON милиции особого назначения ( ОМОН ) ) ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) arrived at the scene . A number of civilians present on the LOC and the adjacent streets alerted the police officers to the fact that Mr PERSON had not offered any resistance to his pursuers , that he had not been armed and that his pursuers had placed an object under his body ; it turned out to be a hand grenade with its pin pulled . The police officers requested the pursuers , who were officers of ORG of ORG ( ORG ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) to identify themselves ; they refused to do so . In the ensuing scuffle the police officers arrested the ORG officers and took them to the PERSON town police department . Mr PERSON , who had been arrested by ORG officers after the chase , was also arrested by the town police and then released DATE .

After bomb disposal experts had deactivated the grenade , Mr PERSON body was taken for a post - mortem examination and was returned to his relatives for burial at TIME on DATE .

The above account of the events is based on the information contained in the application form as well as on written statements by Mr ORG , dated DATE , PERSON . and PERSON . Ts . , both dated QUANTITY DATE , and a written statement by the applicant dated DATE .

Referring to the contents of the investigation file in criminal case no . DATE the ORG stated in their submission of CARDINAL DATE that the circumstances of the incident had been as follows .

“ CARDINAL . TIME on DATE servicemen of ORG found presumed members of a bandit group Mr PERSON and PERSON [ I.D. ] The ORG servicemen got out of the service car and attempted to detain these CARDINAL men . They ordered the QUANTITY men to get down on the ground , having identified themselves as ORG agents .

Mr [ I.D. ] obeyed and lay down on the ground . Mr PERSON did not comply with the order and started to run away . CARDINAL of the ORG agents followed him . During the pursuit he warned Mr PERSON that he would open fire if the latter did not stop . ... Mr PERSON stopped , took a grenade from his pocket and prepared to pull the pin . Taking into account information in their possession concerning the presumed criminal activity of PERSON and his refusal to obey law - enforcement GPE orders , the ORG officer took the decision to open fire , shooting to kill in order to eliminate the threat to his own life and health and that of the other people present at the time in the street .

As regards PERSON [ I.D. ] , on DATE the record of his arrest was drawn up and he was questioned as a suspect ... arrest as a measure of restraint was chosen for him . He was released DATE , and on or CARDINAL DATE he left to live permanently in GPE ... ”

On DATE the PERSON investigating department of ORG with ORG of GPE in PERSON ( hereinafter “ the investigating department ” ) opened criminal case no . DATE against Mr PERSON under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( assault on a law - enforcement official and unlawful possession of arms and explosives ) .

On DATE , DATE , the investigating department examined the crime scene . According to the crime scene report , CARDINAL cartridge cases were collected from the scene and a grenade was found under Mr PERSON body , under the lower part of his stomach . No objects were found in the hands of PERSON . As a result , DATE cartridges and the grenade were collected from the scene for expert examination .

DATE a senior operational search officer , PERSON . of ORG of ORG , conducted an internal inquiry in connection with “ collaboration between police officers from ORG of the ORG and officers of ORG ” concerning the circumstances of PERSON killing . Its results were stated in conclusion no . CARDINAL dated DATE . The document , amongst other things , contained the following information :

“ ... at TIME on DATE the ORG officers conducted a special operation in PERSON aimed at arresting members of illegal armed groups .

The local police department was not informed about it .

During the special operation , the ORG officers eliminated a member of an illegal armed group , PERSON , who had offered active armed resistance .

At TIME police captain [ PERSON ] , who was on duty , ... had seen CARDINAL armed men pursuing a young man who was running away ; CARDINAL of the armed men had opened fire on him . The pursuers had been accompanied by a white PERSON vehicle with darkened windows and without number plates .

Captain [ PERSON ] had reported the incident to the duty unit of the PERSON town police department , and had remained at his post ...

A group of police officers dispatched to the crime scene from the town police station and a group of ORG OMON which had arrived there after hearing shots from automatic weapons ... found a dead man and a disorderly group of CARDINAL people , some in camouflage uniforms and others in civilian clothing , who were shouting ... and yelling about why the police were not arresting armed bandits who had killed an unarmed man who had not offered any resistance .

The armed men , who were in camouflage uniforms and civilian clothing , who had conducted this special operation , had refused to identify themselves , had not presented any documents , and had warned that they would use firearms against the police officers .

The law - enforcement officers of PERSON had taken those men for terrorists and/or active members of illegal armed groups ...

Under these circumstances , to prevent the presumed law - enforcement officers from being lynched by the enraged crowd , the head of the PERSON town police department , Lieutenant - Colonel [ A.M. ] , had tried to separate the armed men who had killed [ the man on the ground ] and the civilians from the local residents . However , the police officers had ended up being isolated by the unidentified armed men and had become , in effect , their hostages ; the armed men had behaved aggressively and refused to state what organisation they belonged to .

The ORG group had arrived at the scene , quickly assessed the situation , and then blocked and disarmed the unidentified individuals using special physical force techniques against those who resisted . After that the armed men were taken to the PERSON town police department and the premises of the PERSON unit ( the entire perimeter of the town police station had been surrounded by civilians expressing their indignation at the actions of the unidentified persons who had made several “ insurance ” shots to the head of the unarmed wounded young man who had fallen to the ground next to the nursery school and who , according to the nearby residents , then had placed an armed grenade under his body to make it look like the young man had offered resistance ) .

The ORG Minister of the ORG and the head of ORG had arrived at the scene and taken the decision to immediately release the arrested persons to avoid making their identities known to the public ...

The unidentified persons ... had offered resistance to the ORG officers ... as a result [ of the scuffle ] , the police officers [ GPE ] and [ M.K. ] and the head of the operational search unit of the PERSON town police department , LieutenantColonel [ A.Ts . ] , required medical assistance ...

All the arrested persons who were law - enforcement officers were released without logging their names in the detention log upon confirmation of their identities by the head of ORG ; their guns were returned to them ...

Therefore , the above misunderstanding took place due to lack of proper coordination between the law - enforcement agencies who were carrying out a special task in GPE ... ”

The documents submitted indicate that on various dates in DATE the investigators questioned several witnesses who lived near the crime scene . For the most part the witnesses stated that they had not seen the actual events but had seen a young ’s man body on the ground surrounded by a large number of police who had cordoned off the area .

On DATE the investigators questioned Ms F.Kh . Ts . , who stated that at TIME on DATE she had been at home . She had looked out of the window on to FAC and heard a muffled sound of an impact . Then she had seen a young man limping rapidly past her window into the premises of the nursery school . He had been followed by a masked man in camouflage uniform with a pistol and a man with a camouflage ORG pulled over his head . This man was running with an automatic rifle and firing at the young man . Then all CARDINAL men went round the corner of the building . The witness had immediately run outside and followed the men . She saw the young man on his stomach on the ground , convulsing . The other QUANTITY men were standing next to him and arguing . Then CARDINAL of them ordered the witness to go away and she obeyed the order . After that a large number of police officers had arrived at the scene and cordoned off the area .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) concluded that the detonating fuse of the grenade recovered from the crime scene was not capable of exploding due to a missing part , but that the grenade itself was capable of exploding provided the fuse was in working condition .

On DATE the investigators questioned a police officer of the PERSON , ORG . Ya . , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had been at work when he and his colleagues had heard sounds of sporadic gunfire coming from the area around PERSON central market . He and CARDINAL of his colleagues were then dispatched to the scene of the shooting , next to the nursery school . Upon arrival at the scene the witnesses had seen a large crowd of local residents and a group of CARDINAL masked men with automatic firearms . The local residents had been aggressively expressing their indignation , as according to them the armed men had killed an unarmed young man ; the body was still on the ground . The armed men had refused to identify themselves or to give reasons for killing the young man . They resisted the police officers : behaved aggressively , swore , fired their weapons into the air several times , and threatened the police with firearms . When the second group of police arrived , owing to the armed men ’s behaviour and the threats from the outraged crowd of local residents they disarmed the masked men , forced them into a NORP lorry , and took them to the PERSON town police department .

DATE the investigators questioned the police officers GPE , GPE . , PERSON . , PERSON . and A .- G.M. ; their statements concerning the events were similar to that of their colleague PERSON . Ya .

On DATE the investigators were informed by ORG that it was impossible to question their officers implicated in the incident , as they were all undergoing medical treatment in hospital in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the investigators questioned police officer Captain PERSON , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had been on duty across the road from the nursery school . He had heard the gunshots and immediately called the police station . After that he had run out into the street and seen CARDINAL men in the sand - coloured camouflage uniforms of special service agents . The men , who had been running ahead , had been firing at someone in front of them . Then the CARDINAL men went round the corner of a building and out of sight . Then the men following them in a white PERSON minivan without registration numbers had turned and driven off .

On DATE ORG informed the investigators of its conclusions concerning the cause of PERSON death . According to their report of DATE , Mr PERSON had died from gunshot wounds , including CARDINAL in the back , CARDINAL in the back of the lower leg , and CARDINAL in the back of the head .

On DATE or DATE the investigators questioned an ORG officer , ORG , and granted him victim status in the criminal case . In his statement the officer submitted that at TIME on DATE he and his colleagues had arrived in PERSON in a service vehicle to identify and detain members of an illegal armed group , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . At TIME they had received information that both men were heading in their direction . The officers had been given descriptions of PERSON I.D. and Mr PERSON and ordered to detain them . The witness and his colleagues got out of the car , shouted “ on the ground ! ORG ! ” and ran after the CARDINAL men . Mr I.D. immediately got down on the ground , whereas Mr PERSON ran away . The witness thought Mr PERSON was armed and could offer resistance . The witness and his colleagues put Mr I.D. into their vehicle and then went after PERSON . When the witness reached FAC he heard “ ORG ! Stop ! ” and then “ Stop or I ’ll fire ! ” and then heard machine - gun shots and ran towards them . He saw his colleagues next to a QUANTITY building in FAC , standing next to the body of Mr PERSON and CARDINAL of the colleagues holding a grenade . He checked PERSON pulse and confirmed that he was dead , then the witness and his colleagues called the mine squad and cordoned off the area .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators questioned ORG officers A.Ch . , PERSON , and NORP . , and granted them victim status in the criminal case . The statements given by the QUANTITY officers to the investigation were identical to that of their colleague , officer PERSON

On DATE the investigating department terminated the proceedings in case no . CARDINAL . The decision referred to statements by ORG officers PERSON , PERSON and NORP . They submitted , among other things , that on DATE they had gone to PERSON to arrest members of an illegal armed group , PERSON and Mr I.D. When the officers had spotted the CARDINAL men , they got out of their PERSON minivan and shouted : “ ORG ! Get down ! ” . Mr I.D. had complied with the order but PERSON had run away . Officers A.B. and A.Ch . followed Mr PERSON , while PERSON , PERSON and GPE . put Mr I.D. securely into their vehicle . After that they heard shooting and went to FAC , where they found ORG officers and PERSON , face down on the ground with a grenade in his hand . The officers checked his pulse , ascertained that he was dead , called bomb disposal experts and secured the area . The decision further stated that officers PERSON and GPE . “ had given similar statements ” , without providing any further details in that respect . The examination of the grenade seized at the scene by the authorities had established that it was capable of exploding . The decision concluded that there existed sufficient evidence to prove that Mr PERSON was guilty of assaulting lawenforcement officials and of unlawful possession of ammunition , but in view of his death in the exchange of fire the criminal case against him was to be terminated . The applicant learnt of that decision at some point in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the head of the investigating department overruled the decision of CARDINAL DATE to terminate the criminal investigation as unsubstantiated at the request of the PERSON town prosecutor . The latter stated in his request , among other things , the following :

“ ... the decision of DATE ... is premature , unlawful and unsubstantiated due to the incompleteness of the investigation ... for instance ,

Mr [ I.D. ] , who had complied with the order of the arresting group ... was not questioned about the circumstances of the incident .

In addition , the investigators did not examine the legal grounds for the use of firearms against Mr PERSON .

From conclusion no . CARDINAL of the internal inquiry of CARDINAL DATE carried out by ORG of ORG , residents of the nearby houses had stated that after the liquidation of Mr PERSON , an armed grenade had been placed under his body to make it look like he had offered armed resistance . However , this information was not examined further ... ”

The applicant was informed of the decision on DATE .

On DATE the investigators separated the part of the evidence concerning the use of the firearms during the incident from criminal case no . DATE and forwarded it to another investigator in the PERSON investigating department for further examination . In the documents submitted it is also stated that on DATE the same material was forwarded to the military investigations department of military unit no . DATE for examination .

On DATE the investigating department again terminated the proceedings in case no . DATE because of the death of the suspect . The text of the decision reiterated in identical wording the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the head of the ORG investigating department overruled the decision of DATE to terminate the criminal investigation as premature and unsubstantiated . In particular , he pointed out that the investigators had neither questioned Mr PERSON and the ORG officer who had shot Mr PERSON nor obtained information on the inquiry concerning the use of the firearms against Mr PERSON by the ORG servicemen .

On DATE the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was again terminated , because of the death of the suspect . The text of the decision reiterated verbatim that of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but did not mention that according to the mother of Mr I.D. the latter had moved to GPE on or CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was not informed of that decision .

On DATE the investigators requested the head of the military investigations department to inform them of the results of the examination of the materials concerning Mr PERSON killing .

On DATE the military investigations department replied to the investigators that on DATE they had refused to initiate criminal investigation into the killing owing to the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the ORG officer PERSON who had opened fire on Mr PERSON . The copy of the decision enclosed with the letter indicated that the decision had been taken on the basis of the explanation given by officer PERSON , which was identical to the statement given by him on DATE to the investigators in criminal case no . DATE ( see the paragraph below ) . Neither the applicant nor his relatives were informed of that decision .

On DATE and DATE respectively the investigators granted ORG officer PERSON victim status in criminal case no . DATE and questioned him . The officer stated that on DATE , as a member of a special combat group , upon the order of the head of ORG , he had arrived in PERSON to carry out a special operation aimed at arresting active members of “ the PERSON illegal armed group ” Mr PERSON and Mr I.D. , who were suspected of involvement in terrorist acts in ORG . Having arrived at the place of the operation next to the nursery school , the officer had got out of the vehicle , run towards Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , and shouted : “ On the ground ! ORG ! ” In reply to this warning Mr I.D. had got down on the ground , whereas Mr PERSON had started running away . The officer had run after him and continued shouting from time to time : “ Stop ! ORG ! ” Having understood that Mr PERSON had no intention of stopping , the officer shouted : “ ORG ! Stop or I ’ll fire ! ” and then fired once into the air when PERSON was QUANTITY away from him . At that point Mr PERSON had stopped , turned round to face the officer , taken a grenade out of the right pocket of his trousers and tried to pull out the fuse . Having assessed the situation as threatening , the officer opened fire , aiming to hit Mr PERSON . When the shots were fired Mr PERSON body was flung about in various directions and then he fell to the ground face down . After ascertaining that Mr PERSON was dead , the officer reported the incident to the head of the operation . The latter ordered the officer and his colleagues from the ORG to cordon off the area and wait for the ORG arrival .

On DATE a relative of Mr PERSON , Mr DATE . , complained to the PERSON town prosecutor about the killing of PERSON and asked for a criminal investigation to be opened into the matter .

On DATE the applicant complained about the killing to ORG and the PERSON town prosecutor .

On DATE the town prosecutor replied to the applicant that on DATE criminal case no . DATE had been opened against Mr PERSON concerning assault on a law - enforcement official and unlawful possession of arms and explosives . The letter did not specify whether any proceedings had been initiated to investigate Mr PERSON killing .

On DATE the applicant complained to the town prosecutor that he had not been informed of any decisions in respect of the complaint concerning his nephew ’s killing .

On DATE the town prosecutor replied to the applicant that the decision to terminate proceedings in criminal case no . DATE had been overruled as unlawful and the proceedings resumed on DATE . The letter did not specify whether any proceedings had been initiated in respect of an investigation of Mr PERSON killing .

On DATE the applicant again complained to the PERSON investigating committee about Mr PERSON killing , and stressed that according to numerous witnesses his nephew had not been armed and had not offered resistance to ORG officers . However , none of those eyewitnesses had been interviewed and no criminal proceedings had been instituted in connection with his death . The applicant further stated that he had in the meantime been provided with the decision of CARDINAL DATE and that the town prosecutor had overruled it as unfounded . The applicant requested the investigating department to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the killing and to question the ORG officers who had participated in the arrest of his nephew , the LAW and police officers and other eyewitnesses . He also asked the investigators to grant him victim status in those proceedings . The applicant ’s complaint was received by the investigating department on DATE but no reply was given to it .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG under LAW about the failure of the investigating department to open a criminal case in connection with Mr PERSON killing and failure to take basic steps to establish the circumstances of the incident . In his complaint the applicant stated , amongst other things , the following :

“ ... On DATE ... officers of law - enforcement bodies shot and killed my nephew Mr PERSON , who , according to eye - witnesses , was not armed and did not resist .

I lodged a request with ORG asking for a criminal case to be opened in connection with the killing . In reply I received the decision to terminate the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL opened against Mr PERSON .

ORG overruled this decision ... I lodged another complaint with ORG in which I requested that a criminal case be opened in order to investigate the killing of PERSON ; witnesses to the incident , in addition to the police officers from ORG and the PERSON who had participated in the detention of the ORG officers who had shot Mr PERSON , be identified and questioned ... and victim status in the criminal case be granted to me . This complaint was delivered on DATE .

According to ... the NORP Criminal Procedure Code , my complaint should have served as the reason for opening of a criminal case ... a criminal case is opened when there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed ... and the decision is taken within DATE from the receipt of the complaint ...

However , those regulations were not complied with . The investigating authorities received my complaint , but they neither took any appropriate decisions nor informed me thereof . This procedural violation led to the failure to take the other steps I had requested in my complaint .

Witnesses to the incident , who could have confirmed Mr PERSON killing and refuted the allegations that he had resisted arrest , have not been identified or questioned . We ourselves have identified such witnesses , including Mr [ M.Ku . ] , Mr [ ORG . ] , and others .

The police officers from ORG and the PERSON who had arrested the individuals , who shot Mr PERSON were not questioned . I was not granted victim status either .

The failure of the investigating authorities to act violates LAW ...

I request , on the basis of LAW that the court ...

Declare unlawful the failure of the investigating authorities to initiate a criminal investigation in respect of my complaint , to identify and question witnesses to the killing ... and grant me victim status in the proceedings ;

Oblige the Karabulak Investigating Committee

( CARDINAL ) to remedy the above breaches ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP to open a criminal case in connection with Mr PERSON killing

( CARDINAL ) to grant me victim status in the criminal case

( CARDINAL ) to identify and question witnesses to Mr PERSON killing

( CARDINAL ) to question officers of ORG and the PERSON who arrested those involved in Mr PERSON killing ... ”

According to the Government , the applicant lodged this complaint on DATE . The incoming mail registration stamp on the copy of the document indicates that this complaint was received on DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in connection with the applicant ’s complaint . According to the transcript of the hearing , both parties were present . During the examination the representative of the investigating authorities submitted that they had transferred the evidence concerning the killing of PERSON to a military prosecutor ’s office . The judge requested that the documents reflecting the transfer be provided for the next hearing , scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG examined and rejected the applicant ’s complaint as unsubstantiated . The court reasoned as follows :

“ ... [ the applicant ] PERSON ... requested that his complaint be allowed and the refusal to initiate a criminal investigation into his nephew ’s killing be declared unlawful ... that the police officers ... who had been present at the crime scene be questioned as witnesses , and that more witnesses to the crime , in addition to the ORG officers who had shot PERSON dead , be identified and questioned .

The public prosecutor Mr [ A. P. ] requested the court to reject the complaint as unsubstantiated . In support of his position he stated that the criminal case related to Mr PERSON death had been terminated by ORG , as the actions of the ORG officers who had carried out the operation in respect of PERSON had been declared lawful . The PERSON police officers on whose questioning the applicant insists before the court arrived at the scene later and did not witness Mr PERSON killing . No other witnesses were identified .

Having been duly informed of the date and place of the hearing , and in the absence of requests for the examination of the case in their absence , both parties failed to appear at the hearing ; this does not preclude the court from examining the complaint on its merits .

The court finds the applicant ’s and his lawyer ’s allegations unsubstantiated , as they are not properly argued and are not supported by appropriate evidence .

On the basis of the above , under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW of LAW , the court finds that the complaint of Mr PERSON under LAW of GPE concerning alleged failure of ORG to act should be rejected ... ”

According to the ORG ’s submission , both parties were present during the examination on DATE . The applicant , who was represented at the hearing by his lawyer , was provided with a copy of the decision by letter from the court , sent to his address on DATE . The Government provided a copy of that letter without an envelope , bearing the applicant ’s address in PERSON and dated DATE .

According to the applicant ’s submission , on DATE no examination of the complaint took place and , therefore , he was not informed of any decisions taken on that date and did not receive the decision by post . The applicant stated that prior to the hearing of DATE his lawyer had been informed in person that the hearing had been rescheduled for an unspecified date . Subsequently , the lawyer repeatedly enquired with the court by telephone and in person about the examination of the complaint . In reply to his queries he was assured that he would be apprised of the date and venue of the examination . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was provided with a copy of the decision of DATE .

In the applicant ’s submission , the court ’s decision allegedly taken on DATE was backdated , and had in fact been prepared at DATE . In particular , he pointed out that the text of the decision and the transcript of the hearing allegedly held on that date contained inconsistencies . In particular , according to the transcript , both parties , including the applicant ’s lawyer , had been present at the hearing and the delivery of the decision by the judge . However , in the text of the decision of DATE it was stated , amongst other things , that neither party had appeared at the hearing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

According to the applicant , on DATE his lawyer telephoned the court and was informed that the examination of his complaint had again been rescheduled as the judge had gone on holiday .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the military investigating department , asking whether they had returned to the town prosecutor ’s office the materials concerning Mr PERSON killing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . No reply was given to that request .

DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer complained to ORG . The text of the complaint included the following :

“ ... PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG ... of inaction on the part of ORG of PERSON . The complaint was assigned for examination to Federal Judge PERSON [ B ] .

According to LAW , this complaint should have been examined within DATE of its receipt . However , this has not yet been done .

I request that you take measures to expedite the examination of the complaint . ”

No reply was given to this complaint .

From the documents submitted it appears that no criminal proceedings against the ORG officers concerning PERSON killing have been initiated to date .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

NORP In DATE ORG launched a counter - terrorist operation in GPE .

On DATE , during an identity check , military servicemen seized a truck ( and the registration papers ) from the home of the applicant and his family at CARDINAL , FAC , in the town of GPE , GPE . The truck had the following vehicle details : model – “ GPE ; year of manufacture DATE ; registration number – И CARDINAL - CARDINAL ЧИ ; engine number LOC ; chassis number – CARDINAL ; cab number DATE ; colour – khaki . According to the applicant , the truck was in working order and in use . The servicemen failed to present any document authorising the seizure .

On several occasions DATE the applicant ’s father , PERSON , complained to various military and civilian authorities , as well as the local police and the prosecutor ’s office , and requested the return of the truck .

On an unspecified date Major - General PERSON , the head of the “ LOC ” zone group of the joint forces of the internal troops of ORG , wrote to the LOC district prosecutor ’s office :

“ In reply to your written enquiry of DATE concerning Mr A. A. ORG ’s complaint , I would like to confirm that vehicle “ PERSON , made in DATE , engine number DATE , khaki colour , chassis number CARDINAL , is indeed located at the base of military unit no . CARDINAL .

At present the truck is not being used ; it has been sealed and placed in the car park for seized and wanted cars .

Enquiries about a car with the above vehicle details have been sent to units of the [ Ministry of the ] ORG and other armed forces in order to verify the ownership of the truck on the basis of the lists of vehicles seized ( stolen or lost ) during the antiterrorist operations in DATE and DATE .

Upon confirmation that the vehicle concerned does not belong to a unit of the [ Ministry of the ] ORG or other armed forces , the truck will be returned to its owner , PERSON . ”

On DATE the truck was returned to the applicant . On the same date Colonel PERSON , Commander of the operative headquarters of the zone “ GPE of the counter - terrorist operation , issued the applicant with the following certificate :

“ The present document is given to PERSON , residing at ... , passport ... , to certify that on DATE , during an identity check , officers of the [ Ministry of the ] Interior seized his truck KAMAZ-CARDINAL , made in DATE , colour khaki , engine number DATE , chassis number CARDINAL , registration no . Ч CARDINAL - CARDINAL Ш , and returned it to him on DATE . The vehicle ’s registration document and number plates were lost while it was at the military unit . ”

On DATE a commission consisting of a deputy head and CARDINAL employees of LOC town council – in the presence of the applicant ’s father – drew up an evaluation report to certify the damage caused to the truck . It stated that on DATE , during an identity check , officers of the ORG had seized the truck and on DATE had returned it to the applicant ’s father ( referred to as the owner ) without the vehicle registration documents and number plates . The commission prepared a list of parts missing from the vehicle ( which amounted to CARDINAL items ) and estimated the total damage at MONEY ( RUB ) .

On DATE a forensic expert examined the truck and stated that its engine number had been erased , but that the cab number ( DATE ) remained intact .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action in LOC of PERSON for his title to the truck to be recognised .

On DATE ORG granted the action . It noted that the vehicle registration documents had been lost by military officers and that the state archives had been destroyed during the conflict . On the basis of statements given by the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses , as well as the relevant documents submitted by the applicant , the court held that the applicant was the owner of a ORG truck corresponding to the relevant vehicle details , with the registration number И CARDINAL ЧИ , but without an identification number . On DATE the judgment became final .

The applicant attempted to obtain compensation from the military authorities and lodged complaints with various law - enforcement and administrative authorities in GPE , describing in detail the seizure of the vehicle on DATE , alleging that it had been used by the military unit stationed at the village of ORG , in the LOC district , and referring to the damage inflicted . The applicant ’s family had written , inter alia , to the head of ORG ( on DATE ) , the GPE military prosecutor ( on DATE ) , and the NORP district prosecutor ’s office ( on DATE ) . On CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . ORG advised the applicant to seek damages in civil proceedings .

On DATE the applicant sued military unit no . CARDINAL in ORG of Krasnodar for unlawful seizure of his truck . He also claimed compensation for the missing parts , the cost of repairs and the use of the truck by the military . The applicant also sought non - pecuniary damages . He referred to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of GPE ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) , which set out the general principles of liability in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG of Krasnodar delivered its judgment . It examined the log book of the military unit for the period between CARDINAL and DATE , but found no record of the seizure of the applicant ’s truck . The court heard evidence from CARDINAL servicemen who had served in unit no . CARDINAL at the relevant time and who denied the presence of any alien truck in the base of the unit . On this basis , the court doubted the veracity of the information contained in the letter from ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) which stated that the truck was being kept at the base of military unit no . CARDINAL . It noted that the letter had not referred to the sources of such information and that , in any event , the ownership of the truck in question remained unclear at that time . The court declined to calculate the amount of damages on the basis of the evaluation report of DATE because the commission consisting of the local council representatives had had no special knowledge or expertise enabling it accurately to assess the damage inflicted . The court examined the case with reference to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . Under those provisions , damage caused by an unlawful act or a failure to act on the part of the ORG or municipal bodies , or their officials , is to be compensated at the expense of the federal , regional or municipal treasury , as appropriate . The court thus concluded that military unit no . CARDINAL was not the proper defendant in the case .

On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing . It endorsed the reasoning of the first - instance court .

The Government submitted that following the communication of the case , another check had been carried out by the military prosecutor for ORG ( “ the military prosecutor ” ) . They submitted documents attesting to the following .

On DATE military unit no . CARDINAL informed the military prosecutor that although a number of military units of ORG had been involved in special operations on DATE in the town of ORG [ in the NORP district ] , they had not conducted any operations in the town of LOC . Further details about the nature of operations in PERSON could not be disclosed as such information was classified . The archive of the military unit contained no documents relevant to the alleged seizure of the ORG truck and no record of any complaints by the applicant regarding the alleged seizure .

On DATE the chief of headquarters of the NORP regional command centre of the joint forces of the internal troops of ORG ( “ the regional command centre ” ) informed the military prosecutor by letter that military unit no . CARDINAL had not been involved in any special operations in the village of ORG , in the LOC district , on DATE . The regional command centre had no information about the truck allegedly seized from the applicant or about his complaints to that effect . Finally , the letter stated that ORG had not served in the regional command centre of ORG .

On DATE military unit no . CARDINAL issued CARDINAL notes , to the effect that on DATE its servicemen had not carried out any operations in the village of ORG and that they had not undertaken any actions there aimed at the identification of stolen vehicles and had not seized the applicant ’s truck .

In DATE CARDINAL servicemen who had served in military unit no . DATE signed affidavits concerning the events of DATE . The servicemen confirmed that they had been serving in military unit no . CARDINAL in DATE and had been stationed in the village of ORG , but could not recall the presence or use of any ORG truck seized from a local inhabitant .

On DATE the head of military unit no . CARDINAL signed a report on an internal investigation into the alleged seizure and retention by the military unit of the applicant ’s ORG truck in DATE . The investigation had begun in DATE following the communication of the applicant ’s complaint to ORG . The report referred to CARDINAL documents produced in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) as the basis for the allegation . The report further noted that CARDINAL officers who had served in the military unit during its mission to GPE in DATE – CARDINAL colonels and CARDINAL lieutenant - colonels – had stated in DATE that they had not been aware of any such seizure ( see preceding paragraph ) . The report concluded that it could not be established that the ORG truck had been kept at the base of military unit no . CARDINAL following its seizure on DATE .


Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP Before DATE , when ORG ) enacted LAW , education in ORG and municipal schools continued to be conducted in NORP and NORP , a practice which was inherited from NORP times . LAW , which took effect on DATE , provided that the only language of instruction in all ORG and municipal schools in GPE would be the ORG language , that is , NORP . It also provided that the language of instruction might be different in private schools , in ORG and municipal schools implementing national minority curricula and in other educational establishments as provided by law . As regards the ORG and municipal schools implementing national minority curricula , it was for ORG to set out specific subjects to be taught in the ORG language ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) and the Minister for ORG was to ensure that the relevant regulations were submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers by DATE ( transitional provisions , paragraph CARDINAL ) . It was also established that everyone should learn the ORG language and take the ORG language proficiency test in order to obtain primary and secondary education ( section GPE ) ) .

DATE the applicant was actively involved in protests against the education reform . He was one of the main leaders of a movement named “ ORG for ORG ” ( “ PERSON skolu aizstāvības štābs ” in NORP ) , which was involved in promoting and advocating protests against the education reform . He participated in meetings and demonstrations against the education reform and made public statements advocating ideas concerning the LANGUAGE - speaking community ’s rights to education in NORP and the preservation of the ORG - financed schools with NORP as the sole language of instruction . The Government provided the ORG with evidence of media coverage of these protests in the period from DATE to DATE , including news reports by the NORP news agency ORG and articles in the DATE newspapers PERSON and PERSON and in the regional newspaper ORG ( in NORP ) . There were CARDINAL news reports and articles in total .

After several sizable meetings and demonstrations , ORG adopted amendments to LAW on DATE . The new text provided that from DATE all secondary ORG and municipal schools implementing national minority curricula had to ensure instruction in the ORG language in not PERCENT of the study curriculum , including foreign languages , in respect of pupils commencing their studies in the tenth grade . These schools also had to ensure that the curriculum relating to minority language , identity and culture was taught in the minority language ( transitional provisions , paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( ORG ) seeking to acquire NORP citizenship through naturalisation . On DATE he passed the naturalisation exams ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG examined the documents submitted by the applicant and , finding that he met the requirements of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Citizenship Law , included his name in the list of candidates applying for citizenship . The list was attached to the draft decision on granting citizenship and transferred to ORG kabinets ) for the final decision .

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers decided to strike the applicant ’s name out of the list , thus refusing his application for naturalisation .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant of the decision of ORG .

On DATE the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against ORG . He asked ORG ( ORG rajona tiesa ) to “ obligate ORG to take a decision on admitting him to NORP citizenship ” . The applicant stated that the decision regarding admission to NORP citizenship was an administrative act and could not be regarded as a political decision . He considered inter alia that a person fulfilled the obligation of loyalty if he met all the requirements of LAW and unless any restrictions stated in the PERSON could be applied to such person . He considered that the refusal to grant him citizenship was unlawful ; in accordance with the principle of equal treatment , his views could not constitute grounds for a refusal . He stated that his name had been struck out of the list owing to his participation in the political party “ For Human Rights in GPE ” ( “ ORG cilvēka tiesībām vienotā FAC , abbreviated to ORG ) and to his public statements . The ORG had nominated him to run for office as mayor of GPE , but the refusal had denied him the right to stand for election in the local municipal elections and had been politically motivated .

On DATE the applicant gave an interview to a journalist from the DATE newspaper ORG . His answer to the question whether he hoped to win the case before the domestic and international courts was reportedly as follows :

“ If I wanted to gain political power , I would have been naturalised DATE and would have been elected to [ ORG ] . The chances of winning a case in a court in GPE might be CARDINAL . But I do not need that . Frankly speaking , we need a broad international scandal . With my case of citizenship we ’ve achieved that , and , additionally , [ we ’ve got ] a broad public relations campaign for the ORG for free . ”

In its submissions of DATE to ORG , the Cabinet of Ministers emphasised that the Minister of ORG had drawn attention to the provisions of LAW to the effect that in seeking NORP citizenship a candidate must demonstrate allegiance to GPE , not only with a promise but also by his actions , and that the applicant ’s actions were not compatible with the oath of allegiance to GPE . Having examined the information at its disposal , the Cabinet of Ministers decided that the applicant ’s actions at the material time had not demonstrated loyalty to GPE .

In its additional submissions of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , ORG argued , inter alia , that its political decision had been based on the applicant ’s actions ; it was clear that he could not truthfully give a pledge of allegiance . It was evidenced by his own public statements , which indicated that he did not have a genuine link with GPE , that he did not wish to establish such a link and that he had applied for citizenship as part of a political campaign to harm GPE . The ORG quoted statements he had made during the interview on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Relying on the principle of “ democracy capable of protecting itself ” , it argued that national security , protection of others and also the ORG language were the democratic values which the ORG purported to protect . The applicant ’s public statements revealed that his actions were aimed at destabilising the situation in the country and that his wish to become a citizen had this purpose in mind . His statements and actions showed that he posed a real threat to national security : ( i ) the applicant was a leader of an organisation whose activities were directed towards disturbing public order and safety ; ( ii ) the organisation ’s activities attested to the possibility of using violence ; ( iii ) the applicant ’s statements indicated that he was ready to use violence ; ( iv ) the applicant ’s actions demonstrated his unwillingness to allow the ORG authorities to exercise legitimate control over the lawfulness of the organisation ’s activities ; and ( v ) the applicant ’s genuine aim was not to acquire NORP citizenship but to conduct an organised campaign directed at triggering a political scandal .

On DATE ORG decided to terminate the proceedings without examining the case on the merits . The court concluded that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers regarding admission to NORP citizenship ( lēmums par personas uzņemšanu Latvijas pilsonībā ) was “ a political decision ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and as such not subject to examination by a court . The applicant appealed , stating , inter alia , that LAW could not be used as a political weapon and that a court should have full jurisdiction over such decisions .

On DATE ORG ( NORP apgabaltiesa ) upheld the decision of ORG and also considered that the decision of ORG was a political decision . The applicant appealed , stating , inter alia , that the granting of citizenship could not be used as a political weapon and that a court should have full jurisdiction over such decisions .

On DATE ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG lietu departaments ) upheld the decision of ORG . The court established that , under LAW , ORG should prepare a draft decision as regards the establishment of legal facts . The final decision was taken by ORG . The ORG took its decision , based on the draft decision prepared by ORG , by a vote . Members of the ORG were not required to give reasons for their vote and the PERSON did not stipulate the details of the decision - making process in this respect . The court stated , inter alia , that :

“ [ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] ... the Cabinet of Ministers [ has ] unrestricted competence as regards granting or refusing citizenship to persons who , as affirmed by ORG , have met the naturalisation criteria . Such unrestricted freedom of action , which is also in stark contrast ( krasi kontrastē ) with the detailed regulation regarding a decision of ORG , attests that ORG in such a case performs not an administrative but rather a constitutional function . Thus , ORG can not be regarded as a public authority for the purposes of administrative procedure . Therefore , the argument stated in the ancillary complaint that the said decision meets all criteria of an administrative act is unfounded .

Having regard to the above , the conclusion of [ ORG ] that the decision appealed against can not be regarded as an administrative act , but as a political decision , is correct . ...

[ CARDINAL ] In ORG view , if a person meets all the requirements for naturalisation and if no restrictions for naturalisation are applicable , [ there is ] a subjective right only to have a draft decision concerning acquisition of citizenship examined by ORG .

[ CARDINAL ] The fact that the legislation does not set out a procedure for appeal against a decision of ORG does not mean that such decision is subject to appeal like an administrative act , in accordance with LAW . There is no established practice in GPE of indicating expressis verbis in a legal act that the relevant decision is not subject to appeal ...

[ CARDINAL ] ... In ORG view , the laws of GPE provide for the possibility of monitoring ( kontrolēt ) decisions taken on naturalisation issues . That is to say , decisions taken by ORG ( administrative acts ) are subject to appeal before a court , in accordance with LAW , whereas if a decision of ORG or a part of it is incompatible with the law , a public prosecutor can submit an application for supervisory review ( protests ) under section CARDINAL of the PERSON on ORG . Therefore , the [ applicant ’s ] reference to [ LAW is unfounded . ”

The applicant has not re - applied for NORP citizenship through naturalisation to date .