Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sergiy Goncharenko;Síofra O’Leary

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

On DATE a police training exercise was conducted in accordance with an operational plan entitled “ FAC ( оперативний план « Сирена DATE ) ( hereinafter “ LOC ” ) . During the exercise the applicants’ son , a police officer at the material time , played the role of a criminal for the purposes of the exercise and was accidentally shot dead by another police officer .

Operation Sirena for LOC was approved in DATE by the police , civil and military authorities of that region on the basis of order No . CARDINAL ( classified ) of DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The plan set out the steps to be taken and the procedure to be followed in the event of a search for and the arrest of armed or other dangerous criminals , including those who had escaped from detention .

A senior traffic police inspector , PERSON , following instruction no . CARDINAL of DATE issued by ORG of ORG ( PERSON внутрішніх справ в GPE області ) ( “ the ORG ” ) and pursuant to an order from a senior traffic police officer , PERSON . , drafted a training exercise for traffic police officers in the city of GPE and the village of GPE in the context of ORG .

The CARDINAL - page training scenario stipulated that the training was to take place on DATE TIME At TIME a police office on duty was to circulate information that armed criminals had hijacked a car and that ORG had been launched . The scenario stipulated that , in addition to the police officer who would drive the car , there should also be in the car a second police officer , ORG , who would observe the actions of police patrol officers . The hijacked car would be followed by a second car containing a police officer , PERSON . , who would film the exercise . The scenario was approved on DATE by a deputy head of ORG , S.

Senior traffic police officer PERSON . , who on DATE was the acting head of ORG , later stated in the course of the criminal investigation that traffic police officers had been given prior notice of the training exercise on DATE that it was held .

At TIME on DATE a senior traffic police officer , So . , briefed traffic police officers NORP , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . and the ORG son about the training . At TIME L. instructed a traffic police officer on duty to give the police unit on duty ( « чергова частина ORG ) prior notice of the training exercise and to issue a “ lookout alert ” .

At TIME a police officer on duty , P. , was informed by a traffic police unit that CARDINAL unknown armed criminals had hijacked a car and were moving in the direction of PERSON , a ORG residential neighbourhood . He communicated this information to the patrol cars , to the city ’s district police stations and to the head of ORG . TIME received additional information that the above - mentioned alert was part of a training exercise being conducted under ORG . According to the findings of the subsequent internal police investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON forwarded that additional information to the head of ORG , who instructed PERSON to pass it on to the city ’s district police stations . It was established by the police internal investigation that PERSON failed to do so .

Having been informed of the alleged hijacking , Os . , the First Deputy of the LOC district police office , issued appropriate instructions to CARDINAL police officers and placed them at various posts . In particular , police officer PERSON was placed , together with a traffic police officer , PERSON . , in the vicinity of FAC over LOC .

The car containing the “ criminals ” ( played by the applicants’ son and police officer PERSON . ) passed the aforementioned post without being stopped . According to PERSON . , his radio transmitter had not been working properly and he had left his post in order to inform the traffic police office in charge that the hijacked car had passed their post . Later PERSON . testified that he had given PERSON prior notice of the training exercise . After PERSON . had left , police officer PERSON . , who was in the second car and was filming the exercise , switched off his camera ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Traffic police officer PERSON , who was an observer in the “ hijacked ” car , instructed the applicants’ son , who was driving , to drive by the post again . This time , police officer PERSON stopped the car , released his gun ’s safety catch , and ordered the applicants’ son and police officer PERSON . to get out of the car . While searching the applicants’ son , PERSON pulled the trigger since the ORG son had allegedly made a sudden movement . The ORG son was fatally wounded and died on the way to hospital .

The applicants submitted a copy of the video recording of the training exercise . However , the part containing the shooting incident involving the applicants’ son was missing . The original video recording has been lost ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG of ORG adopted a decision by which it was concluded that the “ extraordinary event ” ( « надзвичайна подія ORG ) of DATE had taken place because of low professional standards on the part of the police ; PERSON ’s failure to assess properly the “ extraordinary circumstances ” ( « екстремальні умови GPE ) , ignorance of the steps to be taken when arresting a suspect and failure to properly handle his weapon ; and the irresponsible attitude of senior police officers towards the organisation of the training exercise . It was decided , inter alia , to dismiss PERSON , NORP , P. , Os . and A.

On DATE the head of ORG , GPE , approved the findings of an internal investigation conducted following the death of the ORG son .

The conclusion of that investigation provides , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The inspection established that :

In accordance with instruction no . CARDINAL of DATE issued by ORG of ORG ... , PERSON ... drafted a training scenario for traffic police personnel ... When doing so he did not take into consideration the provisions of ORG ... [ It ] is pointless and not efficient to conduct training only for the traffic police officers of ORG and GPE .

The procedure for the conduct of the training was not comprehensively set out ; [ failures included ] :

- the failure to stipulate an itinerary for the car containing the “ criminals ” ;

- the failure to provide for the necessary number of observers ...

In their turn , the senior officers of ORG ... acted in a perfunctory and irresponsible manner ... , did not properly study the scenario and did not correct its shortcomings ...

Moreover , no training instructor was appointed and the heads of services and subdivisions involved in the training were not informed of the details of the scenario .

The deputy head of ORG ... , DATE approved the above - mentioned scenario on DATE without correcting its shortcomings ...

So . , a lieutenant - colonel , ... briefed those police officers who were due to participate in the training but failed to notify the head of ORG the training and did not personally supervise the progress of the training ...

P. ... was briefed by the traffic police unit on duty that CARDINAL unknown armed criminals had hijacked a car and were moving in the direction of PERSON [ a residential neighbourhood of ORG ] . TIME later he was informed that this information was part of a training scenario being conducted under ORG . P. informed the head of the ORG about it and was instructed to inform the LOC district police stations accordingly . P. , acting incompetently and ignoring those instructions , ... failed to inform the officers on duty at the district police stations about the ongoing training but only circulated descriptions of the criminals .

... PERSON , the head of the police unit on duty at the GPE , ... was informed by P. about the training exercise being held by the traffic police ; PERSON ordered PERSON to follow prior practice but ... failed to supervise him .

The senior officers of ORG , Os . and A. ... negligently and lackadaisically implemented LOC ...

... instead of CARDINAL police officers , who were to have been provided with transport and communication devices under PERSON , ... only one police officer , PERSON , was placed at the post , together with a traffic police officer , PERSON . The latter states that he [ gave ] PERSON [ prior notice of ] the training ...

At the same time PERSON and PERSON . failed to properly regulate the traffic and to block the road ...

Police officer O. ... failed to assess the situation in a timely manner , exhibited negligence and carelessness and , despite the fact that PERSON had released his gun ’s safety catch , in blatant breach of order no . CARDINAL of ORG , failed to stop the progression of events which led to a police officer ’s death .

That extraordinary event became possible because of :

- irresponsibility , insufficient professional standards , and incompetence in the conception and drafting of the training scenario ... on the part of police officer PERSON ;

- the formalistic and irresponsible approach to the planning and organising of the practical training ... , lack of cooperation with the regional police , and low level of supervision of subordinates on the part of the regional traffic police management ( police officers PERSON . and So . ) ;

- the negligence of official duties , formalistic approach to the organisation of the training ( and the lack of supervision of its conduct ) , ... and failure to introduce comprehensive measures aimed at the prevention of extraordinary events on the part of police officer PERSON ;

- the low level of professionalism , irresponsible attitude to official duties , and disregard of instructions issued by the head of ORG on the part of the assistant to the head of the unit on duty ( police officer PERSON ) ;

- the indifference and lack of supervision of the professional activities of his subordinates on the part of police officer PERSON ;

- the irresponsibility , negligent and indifferent attitude towards the performance of tasks assigned during the training and failure to take precautions in respect of the personal security of the police officers on duty on the part of police officer O. ;

- the low level of professional training and inability to act [ appropriately ] in extraordinary circumstances ... on the part of police officer PERSON

As a result , it was concluded that police officers PERSON , NORP , P. , Os . and A. should be dismissed and that the dismissal of police officer PERSON should be initiated before ORG . It was further proposed to discipline a number of the other police officers involved . The investigation concluded that the senior police officers involved had failed to properly train their personnel to act in emergency circumstances .

On DATE ORG issued an order which noted that even though safety and the prevention of death and injury in respect of police officers were priorities in police activities , there had been a number of serious shortcomings in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise , which had led to the incident in question . It was noted , inter alia , that since the beginning of his service with ORG in DATE PERSON had not attended the relevant theoretical instruction classes . ORG also concluded that the police officers involved had failed to properly organise the training .

It was further noted that by order No . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by ORG , the head of ORG , Os . , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had been dismissed and other police officers disciplined . For the most part , that decision was approved by ORG . However , it was decided not to dismiss but rather to demote Os . and PERSON and to reprimand I.

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG Office ” ) instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the incident . On DATE it was decided to assign the case to CARDINAL investigating officers and to conduct a forensic medical examination of the body of the applicants’ son . In particular , the expert was asked to determine what injuries were on the corpse .

On DATE a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicants’ son had a gunshot wound to the chest and scratches on the left side of the face , possibly sustained when he fell down .

In the course of the investigation ORG pleaded guilty . His testimonies regarding the events of DATE coincided with the facts as described in paragraphs QUANTITY above .

The testimony of different police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise included , inter alia , the following :

- P. testified that the “ orders in force ” had not required that information about the training be circulated ;

- the head of the police unit on duty at ORG ( начальник чергової частини штабу PERSON ) , PERSON , testified that he had instructed PERSON to “ comply with the PERSON plan , in accordance with the existing instructions ” . PERSON also submitted that the police unit on duty had only received the training scenario on DATE that is DATE after the training exercise . It had been impossible to involve only the traffic police in the training since ORG had required joint action , involving both the police and the traffic police ;

- S. , a deputy head of ORG , testified that there had been no legal instruments governing the conduct of police training under ORG . PERSON stated that the police officer who had ordered the implementation of the training had been supposed to instruct police officers on duty as to what information should be given to the district police stations . PERSON stated that the training scenario had been discussed with PERSON . , who had told PERSON that the scenario had been approved by the head of ORG ;

- police officer PERSON testified that the district police stations must have been aware of the training exercise . This information should have been circulated , together with a “ lookout alert ” ;

- police officer PERSON testified that nobody in ORG had been aware of the training exercise ;

- police officer PERSON . testified that he and the applicants’ son had been “ aware that the police officers [ would ] have guns with live rounds ” ;

- traffic police officer PERSON . testified that he had told PERSON about the training ;

- police officer PERSON . testified that he had stopped filming after traffic police officer PERSON . had left ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , since he had “ not known that the car would make a second attempt to pass this post ” .

During a confrontation held between PERSON and traffic police office PERSON . , the latter insisted that he had informed PERSON about the training .

In the course of the investigation a number of other investigating measures were conducted , including a forensic ballistics examination and a reconstruction of events .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , in the absence of the applicants , terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON under LAW , since he was the father of a minor and should thus not be liable to serve a punishment . It was noted that this decision was not subject to appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected as unsubstantiated an application lodged by the second applicant on DATE for the renewal of the time - limit in respect of an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG upheld this decision . The court noted that although the second applicant had been absent from the court hearing on DATE , she had been aware of that decision since DATE and had received a copy of it on DATE at the latest .

In DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against other police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise . In particular , on DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON . , So . , PERSON . and PERSON in the absence of any evidence of a crime , given that there had been no causal link between their actions and the death of the applicants’ son .

On DATE and DATE , citing the same reasons , ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against P. and O. On DATE those decisions were quashed by ORG and the case was remitted for additional investigation .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged negligence on the part of ORG police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise .

On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings . It noted that , according to a ORG senior police officer , the legal instruments of ORG had not stipulated that police officers should have been informed about the training . Such training was to be conducted under realistic conditions . It was further noted that no obligation to inform colleagues about the training exercise had been part of the duties of any police officer on duty .

On DATE ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case for additional investigation . It noted that the investigation had not been thorough and that the decision taken had been unsubstantiated . In particular , it had not been established whether there had been a causal link between the shortcomings on the part of the police officers and the death of the applicants’ son . It had also not been established which legal instruments regulated police training exercises .

By a letter of DATE ORG informed ORG that , under ( classified ) order No . CARDINAL of the Ministry of the Interior ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the relevant skills were “ to be mastered during training [ conducted ] under realistic conditions ” . At the same time the relevant legal instruments did not specify any procedure for the conduct of training exercises .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG quashed that decision , citing the failure to fully comply with the decision of DATE . The recommenced proceedings were again terminated on DATE . It was noted in the latter decision that the constituent elements of a crime ( “ negligence ” ) under LAW included failure to perform properly or at all certain duties . However , in the absence of any regulations governing procedure for the conduct of training exercises under ORG , the duties of the police officers involved in such training had not been defined . Moreover , there had been no causal link between the actions of the ORG police officers and the death of the applicants’ son , since the latter had died following PERSON ’s mishandling of firearms . It was concluded that there was no indication of any crime in the actions of the police officers .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE . It was noted that the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings had been “ premature and unlawful ” . In particular , during the investigation it had not been clarified whether there had been a possibility to equip the police officers with blank cartridges and why ORG had not intervened to prevent PERSON firing his gun after seeing that its safety catch had been released .

On DATE ORG again terminated the proceedings . When questioned again , PERSON stated that he had not known that PERSON ’s gun had been loaded . Moreover , PERSON should have been aware that a training exercise was in progress . The tragic incident had happened TIME , so O. had not had the possibility of preventing it . PERSON testified that , “ under the ORG ’s instructions regarding the ‘ Sirena’ training plan ” , it had not been his responsibility to circulate the information that the announcement about the car hijacking was part of a training exercise . As to whether blank cartridges could have been used for the training exercise , the head of ORG staff , NORP , testified that the regional police senior officers had decided to use live rounds for the training . The investigation concluded that the applicants’ son had died as a result of the mishandling of firearms on the part of PERSON

On DATE ORG quashed this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation . It was noted that a number of investigative actions had yet to be undertaken and a number of issues had yet to be clarified . In particular , the plans for the training exercise and ORG had to be seized and it had to be clarified who had briefed PERSON and why PERSON had been alone at his post . It was also noted that order No . CARDINAL was not classified and should therefore be added to the case materials .

In DATE the applicants’ relatives testified that at the funeral of the applicants’ son they had noted that make - up had been applied to the applicants’ son ’s face to cover a hole in his head . An ambulance doctor testified that he had not examined the body in detail since it had been evident that the applicants’ son had died after being shot .

On DATE the investigating authorities decided to exhume the body .

On DATE a forensic medical examination of the body of the applicants’ son was ordered because the applicants insisted that their son had not been accidentally shot but rather killed by either being hit on the head with a gun or shot in the head because he had possessed information regarding unlawful activity on the part of other police officers . They stated that the body had had a large haematoma on the head and there had been a crack in the skull .

After the forensic medical examination of the body of the applicants’ son , a forensic expert concluded that the crack in the skull of the ORG son had appeared during the initial forensic medical examination .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of ORG upheld the conclusions of an internal investigation into the loss of the original video recording of the training exercise . It was proposed to discipline the investigating officer , ORG , who , DATE and DATE , had lost the video .

On DATE it was again decided to terminate the criminal proceedings in the absence of any evidence of a crime . A deputy head of ORG , GPE , submitted that the police officers had not been informed about the training exercise since , under ( classified ) order No . CARDINAL of the Ministry of the Interior , police training should be conducted under conditions as realistic as possible . There were no legal instruments of ORG stipulating the procedure for the conduct of training exercises and there was no obligation to inform police officers when any such training was being conducted . Consequently , the scope of duties of those involved in the training conducted under ORG had not been defined .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation , since the prosecutor ’s office had failed to take into account the fact that some police officers had been disciplined . The court also observed that “ all necessary and possible investigative actions had not been undertaken ” .

DATE . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and upheld the decision of DATE . The court concluded that the ORG had , in particular , failed to specify which facts had not been examined by an investigating officer .

The second applicant appealed against the decision of DATE and that many aspects of the case remained unclear ( whether there had been an obligation to inform the police officers about the training , what did the “ near - reality ” conditions mean etc . ) , therefore , the first instance court decision had been well - grounded and should not had been quashed . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the second applicant ’s appeal . It found that the applicant ’s arguments about unlawfulness and lack of reasoning of the second instance court decision had been unsubstantiated . In particular , the court of appeal correctly concluded that the investigation had been comprehensive while the first instance court had failed to give reasons for the need for additional investigation .

On DATE a lump - sum insurance payment in the amount of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( at the material time around MONEY ( ORG ) ) was paid jointly to the applicants and to their son ’s widow and daughter pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

According to the Government , DATE and DATE a total of UAH CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL ) was paid to the applicants in financial aid and the first applicant was furnished with a washing machine , construction materials for a house renovation and a table for a computer .

The applicants instituted proceedings against ORG claiming compensation for damage inflicted by their son ’s death . On DATE the ORG awarded them ORG CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL ) as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . This decision was quashed and the case remitted for fresh consideration .

On DATE the same court awarded the applicants UAH CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . However , on DATE ORG of GPE quashed it and dismissed the ORG claim , finding that , after having accepted a full insurance payment , the applicants no longer had a valid compensation claim . The parties did not submit copies of the applicants’ claim and the domestic courts’ decisions .

In DATE the applicants instituted proceedings against the prosecutor ’s offices at various levels . The applicants complained that the investigation into their son ’s death had been ineffective and claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the ORG , examining the case under administrative procedure , found for the applicants . The court found that the investigation had lasted for DATE and that on CARDINAL occasions ORG had quashed the decisions of ORG terminating those proceedings . The court concluded that the case had been investigated improperly , with numerous breaches of the law , and awarded the applicants compensation .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the first - instance court .

After declining several times to consider the applicants’ case because of their failure to comply with procedural requirements , on DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) decided to terminate the proceedings , ruling that the applicants’ claim for damages should have been lodged under a civil procedure . On DATE ORG upheld this decision . The applicants appealed in cassation .

On DATE ORG upheld the above decisions and held that the applicants should have complained to a higher prosecutor about the allegedly unlawful actions of the lower prosecutor .

NORP In DATE the applicants lodged a claim under civil procedure with ORG against ORG , claiming compensation for damage resulting from an ineffective investigation . On DATE the court dismissed that claim on the ground that the applicants should have lodged their claim under administrative procedure . On DATE ORG upheld that ruling . The applicants did not appeal against those rulings .

In DATE the second applicant instituted administrative proceedings in ORG against ORG and ORG , complaining that their conduct relating to the organisation of the police training of DATE had been unlawful . It is not clear whether she claimed any compensation in this respect .

On DATE ORG found against the second applicant . The court noted that the death of the second applicant ’s son had been investigated several times ; PERSON had been found guilty but amnestied , criminal proceedings against other police officers had been terminated in the absence of evidence of any crime , and police officers PERSON and NORP had been disciplined . Moreover , the second applicant ’s son had died in DATE , but the second applicant had only lodged her claim against ORG and ORG in DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the second applicant , ruling that it had been lodged out of time . On DATE ORG upheld that ruling .

On DATE the applicants lodged an application before this ORG complaining that termination of the proceedings against PERSON had been in breach of the ORG ’s positive obligation under LAW to conduct an effective independent investigation into their son ’s death . They also invoked LAW complaining about the outcome of the proceedings in respect of their claim for compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG by a ORG decision declared their complaints inadmissible ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person;Security of person;Article 5-1-f - Extradition) (Ukraine);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (Russia);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review by a court;Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Stanislav Shevchuk

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of ORG , GPE .

On DATE the ORG ’s office of LOC of the city of GPE ( “ the ORG ’s office ” ) opened a criminal investigation into the murder of a businessman .

By a decision of DATE the ORG ’s office ordered the applicant to appear as a witness in this case . Since at that time the applicant resided in the town of ORG in GPE , the prosecutor also ordered the police to take measures with a view to ensuring the applicant ’s attendance . It appears that the relevant summons was sent to the applicant ’s only known address in GPE , that of his sister , who resided in GPE . The applicant denied having received the summons at that time .

On CARDINAL and DATE the ORG ’s office ordered the applicant ’s apartment in ORG to be searched , requested the cooperation of the NORP authorities in conducting the search , and also dispatched a team of police officers from ORG of the ORG to GPE . In his letter dated DATE a prosecutor from the ORG ’s office specifically mentioned that he had decided to send CARDINAL police officers from that GPE to Feodosiya for “ operative follow - up ” .

CARDINAL NORP police officers , PERSON . and Go . , were entrusted with this operation and at once sent to GPE . It appears that they had secured the support of the head of ORG of ORG of the ORG , lieutenantcolonel FAC . , who had apparently instructed his subordinate , police officer PERSON . , to assist the NORP police officers in their task . The exact mandate of police officer PERSON . is unclear .

On DATE police officer PERSON . and the CARDINAL NORP police officers , PERSON . and Go . , located and arrested the applicant . He was handcuffed and his apartment was searched . The search took place in the presence of the applicant ’s mother , ORG , and her neighbours PERSON and PERSON acting as witnesses ; it was documented in a report drawn up by PERSON . on DATE . The report stated that the applicant had been given a copy of the report on DATE of the search .

According to the applicant , after the search he remained in the custody of the NORP and NORP police , who the next day escorted him to a local airport . The NORP officers and the applicant took the first flight to GPE . On arrival , the applicant was formally arrested by the same CARDINAL officers and detained on suspicion of murder .

The applicant submitted a copy of the passenger manifest for ORG flight Su-CARDINAL dated DATE . The document showed that the applicant and police officers Go . and PERSON . had travelled on the same flight and occupied seats nos . CARDINAL ( Go . ) , CARDINAL ( the applicant ) and CARDINAL ( PERSON . ) .

According to ORG , after the search the applicant had been taken to the NORP police and shortly thereafter had been released . DATE he had bought a ticket and took a flight to GPE . CARDINAL police officers , PERSON . and Go . , had been tipped off about the applicant ’s decision to buy a ticket and managed to buy tickets for the same flight . When the applicant arrived at a GPE airport , he had been arrested by PERSON . and Go . and brought before an investigator from the ORG ’s office .

ORG did not submit their own version of these events .

After the events of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s parents made a number of complaints to various NORP officials and bodies about the actions of the NORP policemen and requested assistance from ORG in repatriating the applicant to GPE from GPE .

More specifically , on DATE the applicant made a criminal complaint to ORG office , alleging abuse of power and the unlawfulness of the search , arrest and detention .

In response to CARDINAL of the complaints of the applicant ’s GPE , on DATE a prosecutor from ORG office initiated administrative proceedings regarding the events of DATE against the NORP officials involved . The decision stated that :

“ ... On DATE police officers from the GPE department of criminal investigations arrived at the town of ORG with a warrant to carry out a search at [ the applicant ’s home address ] , this decision having been authorised by [ a ] prosecutor from the GPE LOC .

The head of the criminal investigation department of ORG ... police lieutenant - colonel FAC . , seriously breached the requirements of LAW and LAW ... according to which contact concerning questions of extradition , criminal prosecution , and the execution of investigatory missions ... is to be made by ORG offices of the respective parties . He directed his [ subordinates ] to render assistance [ to the NORP police ] in carrying out their search .

Before the start of the search the GPE police officers , in the presence of NORP police officers PERSON . , GPE , and PERSON . , arrested [ the applicant ] and handcuffed him : this was confirmed by [ the applicant ’s parents and witnesses ] PERSON and PERSON

After the search , a NORP national [ the applicant ] was apprehended by the NORP police and taken to an unknown location ... ”

On DATE the head of ORG of the ORG , lieutenant - colonel FAC . , issued order no . CARDINAL , in which he reprimanded police officer PERSON . who had taken part in the events of DATE , for “ incorrect and unathorised actions while assisting the police of other states ” .

On DATE the same official from ORG of the ORG issued order no . CARDINAL , in which he mentioned that the initial authorisation given to police officer PERSON . had only included the instruction “ to locate [ the applicant ] and indicate that location to the police officers from GPE ” .

By a letter dated DATE the NORP authorities informed the applicant ’s mother that police officer PERSON . had been reprimanded and that the question of the disciplinary liability of lieutenantcolonel FAC . would be decided when he returned DATE .

On DATE a prosecutor from ORG office wrote a letter to the applicant ’s father and informed him that they “ had requested legal assistance [ from the NORP authorities ] in resolving [ the applicant ’s complaint ] about his unlawful arrest ... and his ... subsequent transfer to [ GPE ] ” . By the same letter the applicant ’s father was informed that the applicant ’s complaint about unlawful actions on the part of the NORP policemen had been forwarded to a prosecutor ’s office for further investigation .

By a letter dated DATE , in response to CARDINAL of the complaints from the applicant ’s family , a prosecutor from ORG office informed the applicant that the NORP lawenforcement bodies had never formally asked the NORP authorities to conduct a search at the applicant ’s address in GPE .

By a letter dated DATE a prosecutor from ORG office informed the applicant ’s mother that the inquiry into the events conducted by the ORG ’s office of GPE revealed that officers from both the NORP and the NORP police had been present during the search . The inquiry resulted in the decision to bring administrative proceedings in respect of the NORP police officers who had breached the rules of criminal procedure and LAW .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged a complaint about the events of DATE with ORG . This complaint remained unexamined and on DATE it was forwarded instead to ORG office . A covering letter signed by the President of ORG explained to the applicant ’s mother that the complaint had been forwarded to the ORG ’s office for examination .

The applicant ’s parents appealed against ORG failure to examine his mother ’s arguments on the merits before ORG of GPE on DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG explained that on DATE an investigator had already refused to bring criminal proceedings in respect of the events of DATE .

It is unclear whether the applicant or his family received a copy of the decision of DATE . According to a certificate submitted by ORG , the inquiry case file was destroyed owing to expiry of the retention period on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a similar complaint with ORG , stating that his arrest in GPE , subsequent transfer to GPE and detention in custody by the NORP authorities had been unlawful .

On DATE an investigator from the ORG ’s office questioned officer PERSON . in connection with the circumstances of the applicant ’s arrest in GPE . PERSON . stated :

“ ... on DATE the prosecutor ’s office of ORG issued an international request for the search of [ the applicant ’s apartment ] and the applicant ’s arrest . Whether it reached the police of Feodosiya I am not sure , but as far as I understood it [ did ] .

In order to execute the request , [ officer ] Go . and I set off for ORG in possession of a copy of the international request .

Having arrived in ORG , we contacted ORG and asked them to be present during the search and other activities within the framework of the request . On DATE we attended the search at [ the applicant ’s ] place of residence . The search of [ the applicant ’s ] apartment was conducted by the [ Feodosiya ] police officers and they drew up a record in this respect . Go . and I were present at the search , but did not actively participate in it . After the search [ the applicant ] was invited by the [ Feodosiya ] police officers to the premises of ORG for questioning .

I was informed by one of the [ Feodosiya ] police officers that [ the applicant ] refused to answer any questions concerning the matter . No documents were given either to me or to Go . We were only given a copy of the search record .

I knew that we had no right to carry out any operative search activities on the territory of GPE , and therefore we did not personally participate in the verbal exchanges with [ the applicant ] . Having refused to make any statements , [ the applicant ] was released .

DATE , DATE , the [ Feodosiya ] policemen – I do n’t remember who exactly – informed Go . and myself that [ the applicant ] had bought a ticket for a plane to GPE and told us the flight and seat number . At once we set off for the sales office and , since very few tickets were sold , managed to buy tickets for seats close to [ the applicant ] so as to be able to observe him . The plane was not full , since few people were flying to GPE . We did not show any interest or attention towards [ the applicant ] . I do n’t know whether [ the applicant ] recognised us . In any event , had he had any concerns , he could have expressed them to the officers [ of the law enforcement agencies in the airport ] . [ The applicant ] did not do this , from which I deduce that he was not aware of either me or Go . , nor had he recognised [ us ] , and he expected to go into hiding in GPE .

We knew about the investigator ’s decision to arrest [ the applicant ] because he had no place of residence in GPE . Upon his arrival in GPE , we decided to arrest [ the applicant ] and bring him [ to the police station of LOC ] for investigative actions ... ”

On DATE an investigator from the ORG ’s office questioned officer Go . in connection with the circumstances of the applicant ’s arrest in GPE . Go . repeated word for word the statements given earlier by PERSON .

By a decision of DATE an investigator from the ORG ’s office rejected the applicant ’s complaint on the grounds that the applicant had travelled to GPE of his own free will and had been detained on arrival in accordance with domestic law . The prosecutor relied principally on the evidence given by the CARDINAL NORP police officers , who explained that they had happened by mere chance to be on the same plane to GPE as the applicant . They denied that they had taken an active part in the events in GPE and stated that the applicant had been released after the search and had then bought a plane ticket to GPE on his own . The officers had been tipped off by an undisclosed source within the NORP police and had managed to buy tickets for the same flight , “ sitting not very far from the applicant ’s seat ” . On arrival in GPE the officers arrested the applicant in the airport terminal and took him to the investigating authorities .

On DATE an investigator from the ORG ’s office questioned the applicant in connection with the circumstances of his arrest in GPE . The applicant stated :

“ ... I was arrested on DATE in the town of ORG , in LOC . The arrest was carried out by QUANTITY police officers from the Feodosiya Town Police and QUANTITY other police officers , who I later learned were from GPE . Once the policemen had identified me I was handcuffed . Thereafter they conducted a search of my home . I was shown a search warrant signed by the Prosecutor from ORG of GPE but no other documents were provided . After the search I was brought to the police station in ORG . I was not shown any documents justifying my arrest . I was refused a phone call . After that I was transported to hotel “ Sailor ” in Feodosiya where the policemen from GPE were staying and where I was handcuffed to a radiator . We spent TIME in the hotel but after that I was taken to the police station because the hotel manager objected to the presence of CARDINAL men in a room designed only for CARDINAL . The rest of the night I spent in an office belonging to the police , attached by handcuffs to the radiator . TIME the policemen from GPE took me to the passport office of ORG to collect my ORG card and thereafter we went by car to the airport . At the airport I was in the car with the policemen from ORG . The policemen bought a ticket in my name . Then we took flight CARDINAL from GPE to GPE . Before boarding we went through the customs and border control . As we were passing it , my handcuffs were removed and the policemen showed their licences to use special devices . Upon landing in GPE , the policemen and I did not go through the border and customs control , but went out through [ a special ] exit . Thereafter I was put in a car and brought to the [ police station ] of LOC of GPE ... ”

In decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , in response to further complaints by the applicant , the prosecutor reiterated his earlier findings .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG of the city of GPE confirmed the prosecutor ’s decision to dispense with criminal proceedings in respect of the allegedly unlawful arrest , search and detention . Among other things , the court referred to LAW .

ORG quashed this judgment on DATE on the grounds that the questions of the lawfulness of the applicant ’s arrest and the search of his apartment were inextricably linked to the merits of the applicant ’s criminal case and could not be decided before the trial court judgment .

The case was remitted for fresh examination at first instance and on DATE the ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal . This judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

It appears that the applicant subsequently tried to institute court proceedings in respect of the same questions before the domestic courts . By a judgment of DATE , given in the applicant ’s absence , ORG of GPE rejected these arguments . The court held , in particular , that :

“ ... as is apparent from the case file , [ the applicant ] was arrested by the [ police officers ] Go . and PERSON . on DATE at PERSON airport as ordered by the investigator in his decision of DATE ...

When questioned in this connection , Go . and PERSON . stated that they did not arrest [ the applicant ] in GPE and did not take any part in the search of his apartment , but were simply in attendance .

According to the search record of DATE , the search was carried out in [ the applicant ’s ] apartment in ORG by the local police and the request to carry it out had been made to the ORG prosecutor by the prosecutor of ORG of GPE .

The order to execute the request is defined by the party to which the request is addressed . In accordance with LAW of RSFSR and LAW , the said norms applied only on the territory of RSFSR but they did not contain any rules preventing [ investigation and operative ] activities on the territory of another state . The [ GPE ] Convention sets out the possibility of legal assistance and does not contain a ban on procedural actions on the territory of ORG , recognising the lawfulness of such actions if they are authorised by the law of the party to which the request was addressed ( LAW ) . According to part CARDINAL of LAW , the presence of officers acting for the requesting party during such actions is possible .

In the view of the above , the court considers that the search was carried out fully and properly . In the present case the prosecutor ’s office was only competent to assess the events which took place on the territory of GPE , as the norms of the code of criminal procedure of RSFSR only applied there , and any decision concerning events which took place on the territory on GPE could only be taken by the competent body in GPE and the corresponding investigation could only be initiated upon a request from the party to which the request was addressed , that is to say GPE . However , no such request was ever made , and , as is apparent from the letter from the ORG prosecutor , the request to bring a criminal case in this connection had been refused ... ”

According to the applicant , he received only a copy of the judgment on CARDINAL DATE and tried to appeal against it on DATE . His request for restoration of the time - limits for appeal , submitted on DATE , was refused by ORG of GPE on DATE for the applicant ’s failure to justify the filing of the appeal outside of the CARDINAL days’ statutory time - limit . ORG upheld the decision of DATE on CARDINAL DATE .

After the ORG had communicated the case to ORG on DATE , police officers PERSON . and Go . wrote explanatory reports to their superiors dated DATE concerning the events of CARDINAL and DATE , with the following content :

“ ... After the search had been carried out , [ the applicant ] went to ORG along with [ the NORP police officials ] to give

The DATE officer Go . and I departed for GPE by air . We were told by CARDINAL of the NORP police officers that [ the applicant ] had bought a ticket to GPE ; we managed to buy tickets for the same flight .

Upon arrival in GPE , after going through customs and border control in the airport terminal , we ... approached [ the applicant and arrested him ] .

No physical or psychological pressure was exercised on [ the applicant ] ... ”

At TIME on DATE an investigator from ORG in GPE drew up a report on the applicant ’s arrest , having ascertained that the applicant was wanted on suspicion of murder . The report noted that the applicant had the status of an accused in the case and confirmed that he had been notified of his rights .

It appears that the applicant ’s detention was first authorised by a decision of DATE taken by ORG office in GPE . The decision stated that the applicant had been detained on DATE . It further referred to the gravity of the charge against him , the risk of his fleeing or interfering with the course of the investigation , and the fact that he had no permanent residence in the GPE region . The decision neither specified the term of the applicant ’s detention nor commented on the lawfulness of his arrest in GPE , his transfer to GPE and his subsequent detention in custody by the NORP authorities .

The detention was subsequently extended by order of the prosecutor on DATE . The order described the course of the investigation into the case and mentioned the progress achieved so far . More specifically , the investigation identified and located Sm . and PERSON . , CARDINAL other persons allegedly directly implicated in the murder of the businessman in question . It also included a number of expert examinations , a forensic examination of the body of the businessman , CARDINAL ballistic examinations and a dactylographic examination . The investigator had mentioned that he still needed to study the network of the applicant ’s and PERSON . ’s connections and to bring new versions of charges against the applicant , as well as against PERSON . and PERSON . The order extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

By order of DATE the applicant ’s detention was extended until DATE . It was based on the same reasoning as the detention order of DATE .

On DATE the prosecution concluded the investigation and remitted the case for examination on the merits . It does not appear that there was any procedural decision authorising the applicant ’s detention DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG conducted a preliminary examination of the applicant ’s case and , without examining the question of the lawfulness of his detention DATE , further remanded the applicant in custody . No time - limit was indicated .

Thereafter the court again extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE as well as on DATE , without specifying any time - limit for his detention . All these decisions were taken with reference to the gravity of the charge against the applicant and the fact that the proceedings in the case had not been completed .

The applicant and his counsel were not invited to attend the hearing of DATE .

It does not appear that the applicant lodged any complaint about the repeated extension of his detention by the prosecutor or by the court prior to the decision of CARDINAL July CARDINAL . The applicant ’s complaints of CARDINAL and DATE against that decision were rejected by ORG on DATE .

According to the applicant , he and his counsel were not invited to attend the hearing of DATE . However , the ORG submitted that the applicant and his counsel had been informed about the hearing of CARDINAL DATE on DATE . The applicant ’s counsel had not given the appeal court any reasons for her failure to appear , and did not ask for the hearing to be postponed . At the same time , the applicant ’s request to attend in person remained unexamined .

It appears that on DATE and DATE the trial court extended the applicant ’s detention once again . The applicant submits that he challenged these decisions on DATE and DATE respectively but received no reply .

According to the Government , the applicant ’s appeals against the decision of DATE were dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE , whilst the decision of DATE was appealed against on DATE . The Government were unable to specify the reasons for the domestic courts’ failure to examine these appeals .

On DATE the preliminary investigation was concluded and the prosecutor remitted the applicant ’s criminal case to ORG for trial .

On DATE Judge PERSON listed the case for a hearing on DATE .

On DATE the court adjourned the hearing until DATE . On the latter date the hearing was adjourned until DATE since a lawyer for CARDINAL of the co - accused failed to appear .

Judge PERSON took over the case on DATE and scheduled the hearing for DATE .

On DATE the court adjourned the case until DATE , when the case was again suspended until DATE because of the failure of some witnesses to appear .

On DATE the hearing was postponed until DATE for the same reasons .

By a decision of DATE the court fixed DATE of the hearing for DATE .

DATE and DATE hearings were held regularly .

On DATE the case was adjourned on grounds of witnesses’ absence and the need for a psychiatric examination of the applicant . The examination was carried out on DATE .

In DATE the case was transferred to Judge PERSON next hearing took place in DATE , when the case was yet again postponed until DATE due to witnesses’ failure to appear .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of conspiracy to murder and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The court did not address the question of the lawfulness of the applicant ’s arrest and detention until his arrival in GPE on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The cases concern the DATE ORG internal premium loan bonds ( облигации государственного внутреннего выигрышного займа DATE года - “ DATE premium bonds ” ) which are in the applicants’ possession . The applicants submitted lists of serials numbers or photocopies of their bonds .

On DATE ORG decided to issue bonds of an internal premium loan to finance certain ORG programmes . The bonds had nominal values of CARDINAL , DATE and MONEY ( ORG ) . Their period of circulation was set at DATE , from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , and they were redeemable at any time during the term of the loan with interest at PERCENT per annum . NORP citizens could either buy the DATE premium bonds with their own money or obtain them in exchange for bonds from an DATE ORG internal premium loan . The average DATE wage in DATE was ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL across all branches of the economy plus ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL in various social benefits ( ORG the GPE DATE , a statistical yearbook by ORG , GPE , DATE ) .

By DATE the NORP economy was suffering from a structural imbalance due a rapidly increasing money supply and decreasing availability of consumer goods sold at ORG - controlled prices . In DATE the ORG freed PERCENT of prices and carried out a monetary reform eliminating the largest banknotes in circulation and restricting the withdrawal of money from bank deposit accounts to ORG DATE . This led to a CARDINAL to threefold increase in prices . On DATE the GPE President issued Decree no . PERSON , ordering a CARDINAL - time increase to savings instruments , including the DATE premium bonds , of PERCENT to offset the price rise .

On DATE the GPE was dissolved by Declaration no . CARDINAL-N of ORG of the GPE . The declaration invited the heads of newly independent GPE to reflect on the issues of succession .

On DATE ORG issued ORG no . CARDINAL , recognising its succession in respect of the obligations of the former GPE under the DATE loan :

“ CARDINAL . To confirm succession of the [ NORP ] Government in respect of the obligations of the former GPE vis - à - vis GPE citizens arising out of the bonds of the DATE ORG internal premium loan .

To give GPE citizens who are holders of bonds of the DATE ORG internal premium loan the right to voluntarily exchange their bonds against ORG securities , including DATE NORP internal premium loan bonds , shares in ORG ... and also to credit the proceeds of sale of the bonds into deposit accounts open in ORG ... from DATE ... ”

DATE a series of NORP laws and regulations were passed which provided for the conversion of NORP securities , including the DATE premium bonds , into special NORP promissory notes nominated in “ promissory roubles ” ( ORG ) ( for details , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

DATE to DATE , the application and implementation of those laws and regulations have been continuously suspended , most recently for DATE to DATE , by PERSON no . ORG of DATE and ORG no . CARDINAL dated DATE .

The applicants applied to the NORP financial authorities and the courts , seeking the redemption of their bonds . Their claims were rejected on procedural and substantive grounds . Mr PERSON ’s claim was allowed at first instance but the judgment was later overturned on appeal . On CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON obtained a decision from ORG in GPE , requiring ORG to convert his bonds into special promissory notes .

Mr PERSON and PERSON claim was referred by ORG to ORG . By decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE , ORG declared it inadmissible , finding that it was not competent to rule on the issue of an alleged failure of federal lawmakers to enact laws guaranteeing the protection of savings which had been recognised as GPE ’s internal debt . In its view , the federal lawmakers had adequate discretion to legislate on those issues in the interests of everyone , taking into account the specific social and economic conditions prevailing in GPE and the balance between the rights and lawful interests of various categories of citizens , including those who acted as creditors of the ORG and others in respect of whom the ORG had public policy obligations . The legislature was entitled to restrict the rights , including property rights , of some people for the protection of rights and lawful interests of others .


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

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP The applicant is the owner of a restaurant in GPE . At the relevant time the restaurant was operating with a health and safety licence ( alvará sanitário ) .

NORP On DATE CARDINAL inspectors from ORG ( ORG ) conducted an inspection of the applicant ’s restaurant during TIME , when the restaurant was crowded .

During the inspection , CARDINAL of the inspectors publicly addressed the applicant ’s husband and claimed that the restaurant did not meet statutory health and safety standards and should therefore be closed down .

According to the applicant , on account of that criticism the restaurant lost clients .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought a tort action against the ORG before ORG do GPE ) seeking damages for the conduct of the health inspectors . The ORG was represented by the Attorney ORG ( PERSON ) during the course of the proceedings .

NORP In order to bring the proceedings before ORG , the applicant applied for legal aid . Pursuant to CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , the Attorney ORG was called upon to issue an opinion on the applicant ’s request . On DATE the latter considered that the request should be refused on grounds of the applicant ’s average DATE income , stating as follows :

“ The plaintiff admits that she has an average DATE income of MONEY ( PTE ) , which had previously been PTE CARDINAL . Her DATE salary exceeds , therefore , the amounts considered to constitute a presumption of economic need , according to the legislator . I am therefore of the opinion that the plaintiff ’s legal aid request should be refused . ”

NORP In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the conduct of the CARDINAL inspectors from ORG for ORG during the impugned inspection had been illegal and had caused damage to the applicant . Furthermore , it awarded the applicant PTE PERSON ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and an amount in respect of pecuniary damage that remained to be determined during the proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment .

On an unknown date the Attorney ORG lodged an appeal against the judgment with ORG ( Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On an unknown date the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG for the enforcement of ORG judgment and the calculation of the amount to be awarded in respect of pecuniary damage . She claimed damages of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , corresponding to the pecuniary losses allegedly suffered as a result of the inspectors’ conduct from DATE of the inspection until such time as the action had been brought .

On DATE the Attorney ORG contested the amount claimed by the applicant as excessive . It argued that any pecuniary damages should be limited to the loss sustained as a consequence of the reduction in the applicant ’s DATE income , in accordance with the facts that had been established by the first - instance court and pursuant to ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG adopted a decision in which it awarded the applicant PERSON in respect of pecuniary damage . The domestic court ’s decision was based on the evidence provided by the parties , namely the applicant , and on an expert assessment that had been requested by the court to estimate the damage suffered .

NORP The applicant appealed against the decision before ORG , contesting the amount awarded . She argued that the ORG statements and the evidence provided had been wrongly assessed . She also disputed the legality of the first - instance court ’s refusal to grant a request she had lodged for the clarification of the expert assessment during the course of the proceedings before the first - instance court . The applicant further complained that the Attorney ORG had been allowed to have CARDINAL contradictory legal positions in the proceedings without suffering any sanction , by making reference to its opinion on her legal aid request during the tort proceedings and the fact that it had disputed the amount she had claimed for pecuniary damage .

ORG judgment was adopted on DATE and notified to the applicant on DATE .

In its judgment ORG held that the expert ’s opinion had been inconclusive and considered that the amount awarded on that account had not been sufficiently justified . It further noted that the expert ’s opinion had been requested under a legal provision which was not applicable to the case at hand . ORG , therefore , dismissed the expert ’s assessment and made a new assessment of the evidence in order to evaluate the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant . With reference to the ORG statements heard and the evidence provided , namely by the applicant , the higher court considered that it could not establish a loss in the amount claimed by the applicant . Thus , ORG decided that the pecuniary damages should be calculated on the basis of equity ( juízo de equidade ) , taking into account the facts that had been established in the course of the proceedings . Accordingly , it awarded the applicant LAW in respect of pecuniary damage , to be paid by the State .

At the material time , legal aid was regulated by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE . Requests for legal aid were decided by the judicial authority in charge of the proceedings for which they had been submitted . Pursuant to LAW the Attorney ORG was called upon to submit an opinion on that regard .

In judgment no . CARDINAL - B.ECARDINAL-A.SCARDINAL of DATE , ORG considered the possibility of reconciling a discrepancy between CARDINAL discordant positions of the Attorney ORG , when acting in the capacity of a public prosecutor in criminal proceedings . ORG judgment seeking to harmonise the judicial approach to that question ( acórdão de fixação de jurisprudência ) contains the following passages :

“ The Attorney ORG , which assumes , at any stage of the proceedings , a legal position as to the innocence or guilt of the accused , can not subsequently modify its position , claiming a better judgment , to the possible detriment of the defendant ’s position .

Consequently it follows , inexorably , that conflicting and contradictory procedural interventions which are not a demand for truth and justice , but derive solely from the need to express subjective opinions , are inadmissible .

In view of the combined provisions of ORG DATE , the Attorney ORG has no interest in appealing against decisions that are consistent with its previously held position in the proceedings . ”


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Syria);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Syria);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Review of lawfulness of detention);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE . Since DATE he has been kept in a detention centre for foreign nationals in the town of GPE , GPE , GPE .

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . He was in possession of a visa declaring the purpose of his visit as business . The applicant ’s visa was due to expire in DATE . However , the visa allowed the applicant to stay in GPE for no longer than DATE in the course of a single visit . As submitted by the Government , he was therefore expected to leave GPE in DATE .

The applicant did not leave and started to live together with PERSON , a NORP national . In DATE they had a child together . In DATE they married .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant was found guilty of an offence under LAW ( CAO ) , which provided that a foreigner could be punished for unlawful employment activities in GPE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of an offence under LAW CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , of remaining in GPE after the expiry of the visa . It sentenced him to a fine and a penalty of forcible administrative removal ( принудительное административное выдворение ) from GPE . ORG held as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG provides for the following penalties : a fine of MONEY with or without administrative removal from GPE ...

The subsidiary penalty of administrative removal from NORP may be imposed with due regard to the information that confirms the actual need to impose such a penalty on the defendant , as well as the information that confirms the proportionality of this penalty as the only acceptable measure for achieving a balance between the public and private interests at stake ...

The defendant has no legal grounds for remaining in GPE . If a fine is imposed , the defendant will add himself to the group of illegal labour immigrants who do everything to avoid compliance with the NORP migration legislation . The penalty of administrative removal is also necessary for the sake of national security , to avoid the spread of various infectious diseases such as HIV , tuberculosis and leprosy , and to ensure the optimal balance of labour resources and in order to support , as a matter of priority , the employment of NORP nationals ... ”

In the same judgment ORG ordered that , while awaiting enforcement of the administrative removal , the applicant be placed in a special detention facility for foreigners in the town of GPE .

Lawyer NORP lodged a statement of appeal on behalf of the applicant against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that the applicant raised arguments relating to his family life in GPE ; it is unclear whether he raised any argument relating to a risk to his life and physical integrity in the event of enforcement of the penalty of forcible removal .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment . The appeal court held as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG provides for the following penalties : a fine of MONEY with administrative removal from GPE ...

[ The applicant ] has committed a violation of the regime applicable for the presence of foreigners in GPE , by way of omitting after DATE to leave GPE ...

The court dismisses [ the applicant ’s ] argument relating to his family life in GPE ... The marriage with PERSON was concluded on DATE , which was a long time after the commission of the offence by [ the applicant ] ... The administrative offence record did not contain any information relating to his family life in GPE . No such information was adduced during the proceedings before the first - instance court ...

[ The applicant ’s ] prolonged violation of the migration legislation since DATE amounts to abuse of GPE ’s hospitality and thus should be treated as a breach of the receiving country ’s interests ... ”

On an unspecified date the applicant received a copy of the appeal decision .

NORP The penalty of administrative removal was not enforced . According to the Government , the bailiff service instituted enforcement proceedings on DATE , but they were not pursued on account of an application lodged by the applicant for temporary asylum ( see below ) .

On DATE the applicant applied for temporary asylum . He referred to the ongoing intensive military actions in GPE , in particular in his home town of GPE . He further argued that given his age , he would be drafted by the governmental forces for active military service , thereby putting his life and physical integrity in danger .

It appears that the applicant engaged lawyer PERSON to assist him in those proceedings and had a meeting with him in the detention centre . On DATE the applicant called the lawyer from the detention centre , complaining of beatings . On DATE , the lawyer was refused access to the applicant in the detention centre , apparently because he should have obtained authorisation for the visit from the regional migration authority . The lawyer wrote to the regional prosecutor ’s office complaining of a violation of the applicant ’s rights and physical integrity .

On DATE the lawyer made a further unsuccessful attempt to gain access to the applicant .

On DATE the local migration authority dismissed the applicant ’s application for temporary asylum . The applicant sought review of this refusal before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . On DATE the ORG upheld its decision , stating as follows :

“ In DATE there were no large - scale military operations in GPE ; there were only localised hostilities between governmental forces and opposition groups . Despite the above , the applicant failed to leave GPE ... At the time he did not apply for asylum and continued to stay in GPE unlawfully until the imposition of the penalty of administrative removal .

The following violations of the migration rules for foreigners should be pointed out :

The applicant arrived in GPE under a business visa , whereas his actual goal was employment . Thus , his declared aim did not correspond to the actual aim for arriving in GPE .

The applicant was unlawfully engaged in employment activities ...

In DATE he was twice prosecuted for administrative offences . However , even after this , he did not seek asylum , while neglecting the real possibility of his future deportation from GPE ...

ORG points out that NORP nationals who return to their homeland or who are deported or expelled there may arrive in GPE and then proceed to other regions that are controlled by governmental forces . ”

On DATE the applicant , assisted by lawyer PERSON , sought judicial review of the refusal of temporary asylum under LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) and asked ORG of PERSON to put in place an interim measure by way of suspending enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On DATE the court refused to deal with the case , concluding that it had to be lodged before a court with jurisdiction in the area of the applicant ’s current “ place of residence ” ; his stay in the detention centre did not qualify as a place of residence .

Assisted by PERSON ( who is his representative before ORG ) the applicant resubmitted his application for judicial review to ORG of GPE . On DATE ORG left the matter without examination because the applicant had not indicated the date and place of his birth ; had not specified whether he had a law degree , which was relevant because the case could only be lodged by a person in possession of a law degree ; and had not provided evidence that his representative had a law degree . The applicant was required to remedy the above defects by DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the refusals of temporary asylum . The court held that the applicant was at risk of violence which was no more intensive than for other people living in GPE :

“ The grounds for granting temporary asylum on account of humanitarian considerations include the following situations : a grave medical condition for which the foreigner will not receive the requisite medical care in the country of nationality , thus putting his or her life at risk ; a real threat to his or her life or liberty on account of hunger , epidemics , emergency situations of environmental or industrial origin or on account of an internal or international conflict that encompasses the entire territory of the state of nationality ; a real threat of being subjected to torture or another cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country of nationality .

Under LAW parties to the case must prove the circumstances to which they refer as the basis for their claims or objections , unless otherwise provided for by LAW .

Assessing the evidence submitted to it , the court concludes that [ the applicant ] has not adduced convincing arguments that he is at risk of being persecuted by the authorities or by groups of the population on account of his religion , race or membership of a social group ... Despite the difficult social and political situation in GPE , there are no grounds to consider that his life will be at a higher risk than that of other people living in this country ... According to information from ORG , people returning to GPE may reach directly the city of GPE , which is under the control of the government . ... ”

The applicant received a copy of the judgment in DATE and lodged an appeal . He argued that the first - instance court had not paid proper attention to his argument relating to the risk to his life and physical integrity in the event of his removal to GPE ; the migration authority had not refuted his argument while the court had shifted the burden of proof onto the applicant and had placed undue emphasis on the illegality of the applicant ’s presence in GPE . His appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The appeal court held as follows :

“ The first - instance court considered that the applicant did not fall within the scope of the notion of “ refugee ” under LAW ... In view of the applicant ’s failure to submit specific facts disclosing that in the event of his removal to GPE he would be exposed to a real threat to his security ... or that he was persecuted in this country , the appeal court agrees with the first - instance court ... The appeal court also notes that the applicant arrived in GPE in DATE but only sought temporary asylum in DATE . ”


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the ORG ordered the detention of the applicant in absentia .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the gendarmerie in the absence of his lawyer . In his statement , the applicant gave a detailed description about his involvement in an illegal organisation and the activities in which he had taken part . Subsequently , he was brought before the public prosecutor at ORG . During the interview , the applicant stated , again in the absence of a lawyer , that his statements made to the gendarmerie had been correct .

On DATE the investigating judge at the Mardin Magistrate ’s Court ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention , again in the absence of a lawyer .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment before ORG , charging the applicant under LAW of the former LAW with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged .

On DATE ORG quashed the conviction .

On DATE ORG found that , inter alia , on the basis of the applicant ’s statements to the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor , the applicant had committed the offence under LAW of the former LAW and sentenced him to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos

The applicants were or are still detained in FAC ( “ the ORG ” ) . They all suffer from HIV infection , apart from the third applicant who suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease .

The first applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he made use of the remedy provided for by LAW .

The second applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE and from DATE until DATE , the date on which he was released following use of the remedy provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .

The third applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC on DATE and was released on DATE following use of the remedy provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .

The fourth applicant , FAC , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE . He was released after having made use of the remedy provided for by LAW .

The fifth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , the date on which he was released following use of the remedy provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .

The sixth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , the date on which he was released following use of the remedy provided by LAW no . CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .

The seventh applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE . He was released after having made use of the remedy provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

The eighth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE . He was released following an application on the basis of section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE .

The ninth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE . He was still in detention when the parties submitted their observations .

The tenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released after he lodged an application on the basis of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . He was again detained in FAC from CARDINAL DATE , and was still in detention there when the parties submitted their observations .

The eleventh applicant , PERSON , was detained in ORG from DATE until DATE , the date on which he was released on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .

The twelfth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released , having served CARDINAL of his sentence , on the basis of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . He was again detained from DATE until DATE when he was released , having served CARDINAL of his sentence , on the basis of the same provision .

According to the documents before the ORG , the thirteenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC for significant periods of time from DATE until DATE .

The fourteenth applicant , ORG , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .

The fifteenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE and from CARDINAL DATE until DATE .

The sixteenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released , after having made use of the remedy provided for by LAW .

The seventeenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in ORG from DATE and was still in detention there when the parties submitted their observations .

The eighteenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released after having made use of the remedy provided for by LAW . He was again detained on DATE and was still in detention there when the parties submitted their observations .

The applicants submitted that ORG had been overcrowded which , in addition to causing poor sanitary conditions , had resulted in the deterioration of their already fragile health . They maintained that all of them had been detained in hospital wards which had measured CARDINAL sq . m and which had been occupied by CARDINAL detainees on average for the period DATE . In addition , the second and third applicants had been detained in cells measuring QUANTITY m and which had held CARDINAL inmates . They further argued that they had not been able to move freely within the wards owing to the space occupied by furniture . In particular , bunk beds were not used in FAC and extra furniture , such as medical equipment , was required ; therefore CARDINAL the area of each ward had been occupied by furniture , which had resulted in them having a personal space in which they could move freely of below QUANTITY m.

The above - mentioned conditions had led them to receiving inadequate health care . There had been a high risk of infection with contagious diseases as there had not been effective separation of detainees according to the disease from which they had suffered . In addition , CARDINAL toilets had been available for the detainees in a total of CARDINAL wards on the first floor .

Meals had been insufficient and of poor quality and the absence of recreational activities had affected their psychological health . Central heating had been inadequate and collection of rubbish , especially in the kitchens , had not been sufficient , creating hygiene problems and resulting in bad smells and the presence of pests . The applicants also complained of the lack of medical staff and properly equipped laboratories for their medical examinations . In particular , during the period DATE - CARDINAL only CARDINAL general practitioner had been available to the hospital .

The applicants acknowledged that the conditions of their detention had improved in DATE and that the medical - staff numbers had increased , resulting in conditions which met the requirements of LAW but only for the period after DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW , to which they have not received any reply to date .

According to the Government , ORG official capacity was CARDINAL patients and at the time of the applicants’ detention the hospital had held CARDINAL patients . Specifically as regards the applicants , some of them had been detained in wards CARDINAL and CARDINAL on the first floor of the hospital and some others in wards CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL on the second floor . The wards measured CARDINAL sq . m each , and each of them hosted CARDINAL to CARDINAL detainees . Therefore , the personal space available to them ranged from QUANTITY . m to QUANTITY m. It was also noted that toilets had been in the corridors , not inside the wards , which had remained unlocked so as to ensure unobstructed access to the bathrooms .

ORG was an establishment providing primary medical care by operating as a clinic . Detainees who required more intense or specialised care were referred to public hospitals , a procedure which was used for the third , fourth , ninth , fifteenth and seventeenth applicants . The patients were separated by disease . They were examined regularly by doctors and they were submitted often to general and specialised laboratory examinations .

Wards were sufficiently ventilated and heated and had adequate natural light via CARDINAL large windows . Hot water was ensured by solar water heaters and by boilers which operated for TIME . Wards were regularly cleaned by cleaning crews consisting of detainees and disinfected by specialist companies . The hospital ’s social service provided personal hygiene products to detainees who could not afford them . All wards and corridors had rubbish bins which were emptied regularly .

As regards detainees’ meals , they were designed under medical supervision to ensure that patients received all necessary nutrients . The Government submitted the menu of DATE to demonstrate that they had been comprised of a variety of food .

According to the Government , detainees were not obliged to spend DATE in the wards ; on the contrary , they could move along the corridors and spend time in the yard . Various recreational activities were organised and detainees had had the opportunity to enrol in educational programmes since DATE . Detainees were also granted DATE of leave that they could spend outside the prison hospital ; the third , fifth and eleventh applicants had benefitted from such leave .

Lastly , according to the ORG , during DATE and DATE conditions of detention in FAC were drastically improved . That was mainly due to measures taken to reduce overcrowding in prisons under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which provided for early release schemes . In DATE a women ’s ward had been opened at the hospital and work had been carried out to improve the facilities . In addition , new and updated medical equipment was procured and medical - staff numbers had been reinforced by the recruitment of CARDINAL new doctors of various specialties . The Government specified that all the above - mentioned improvements had made ORG a detention facility significantly different to the image given in ORG ( ORG ) report , which had been prepared on the basis of a visit in DATE , that is to say on DATE that had no relevance to the present case .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP The applicant was employed by the C. company from DATE to DATE . On DATE he attended a trade show for young entrepreneurs and gave an interview to a journalist . In this interview , he stated that in his opinion it was only possible to develop ideas in one ’s own company , whereas this was difficult when working for an enterprise . He further declared that he intended to set up his own company together with a partner . He explained that they were not discouraged by the fact that a loan and a lot of work input was required . This statement was quoted on DATE in the DATE newspaper “ PERSON ” in a report on the topic why young people dared to become self - employed , under the headline “ We simply want more freedom ” . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s superiors read the newspaper article and confronted the applicant with it on DATE .

DATE the applicant was told that the company wished to end the working contract . In order not to harm his future career , his superior advised him to either give notice out of his own motion , or end the contract in mutual consent ( einvernehmliche PERSON ) . If he did not choose CARDINAL of the CARDINAL options , the company would dismiss him .

After having reflected on the options , the applicant ended the contract in mutual consent with the company by a signed agreement dated CARDINAL DATE . The parties agreed that the contract ended on DATE and that the applicant received the statutory dismissal pay ( gesetzliche GPE ) of CARDINAL months’ salary . They agreed that the applicant was off duty from DATE on . The parties however did not agree on the payment of a compensation for the dismissal of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , filed an action against his former employer challenging the mutual agreement at ORG ( Arbeits- und ORG ) . He claimed that he had been under duress when signing the agreement . By terminating the employment agreement mutually he had waived several entitlements which he had not been informed about .

The applicant set the value of the dispute at CARDINAL ( ORG ) . The opponent company objected to this value and argued that the action rather concerned a declaratory judgment that the contract was still in force . According to the law the value should thus be set at LAW ( i.e. DATE ) , but at least ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( i.e. three years’ salary ) . The court set the value at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

NORP In its judgment of DATE ORG ( Arbeits- und ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s claim . In its reasoning the court noted that the applicant had had time to reflect on the possibilities offered to him by his employer and read the agreement before signing it . The court found that the applicant was under no pressure when signing the agreement and his superior had not misused the special emotional situation of the applicant . The court also noted that the applicant obviously regretted having agreed on the termination without receiving a compensation for the dismissal .

The applicant appealed and argued , inter alia , that the value was set too high and that the legal reasoning was wrong . He also argued that not only the ORG but also the employer were held to observe his rights under LAW ( “ the LAW ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision on the merits and the value at issue , holding that the value as set by the first instance court was not against the law . It noted that the value determined by the court of first instance was only challengeable if it was contrary to the law , but apart from that there was a margin of discretion afforded to the first instance . ORG pointed out that the first instance had set the value at a fairly low rate .

The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG and again argued that the employer had disregarded the applicant ’s rights under LAW .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the merits of the case for lack of an important question of law ; it held that it had no jurisdiction to alter the set value at issue . The applicant was obliged to pay the costs of the court proceedings and of the opponent ’s lawyer . This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

According to NORP labour law , an employee can in principle be dismissed without the employer being obliged to give any reason . The employer only has to respect the period for giving notice ( PERSON ) and the dismissal date ( PERSON ) . Only in case of a dismissal without notice ( PERSON ) the employer would be obliged to rely on an important reason prescribed by law .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( NORP ) stipulates that in case the employee is sent off - duty after a dismissal or in case of a dismissal without notice without an important reason , he or she is entitled to compensation for the dismissal ( GPE ) . The employee is hence entitled to the full salary until the end of the period of notice and the aliquot part of the DATE bonus ( GPE ) and holiday pay ( GPE ) . Furthermore the employee is entitled to a compensation for any vacation he did not consume ( Urlaubsentschädigung ) .

In addition to the compensation for dismissal an employee is entitled to dismissal pay ( PERSON ) according to LAW . This dismissal pay is paid out if the contract was concluded before DATE and the employee had worked for the company for DATE . The amount of the dismissal pay depends on DATE of service .

In case an employment contract is terminated by mutual agreement , the parties are free to agree on the payment or the amount of the compensation for the dismissal . However , the payment of the dismissal pay is compulsory .

According to LAW ) an agreement ( PERSON ) can only be challenged in case the parties were mistaken about an essential fact of the agreement , in case of an error of expression or in case of extortion ( PERSON ) .

According to LAW of the LAW on Exercise of Jurisdiction ( Jurisdiktionsnorm ) , in a court case regarding an action for a declaratory judgment that an employment contract is still in force , the value should be set at DATE of the employee .

In general , when a party challenges the fixing of the value of the claim , the court of first instance has to do so in accordance with LAW ( Rechtsanwaltstarifgesetz ) . This decision is contestable only if it is contrary to mandatory rules . The value of the claim is the basis for the court costs and the lawyer ’s fees .


Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Pavlina Panova;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The first applicant , PERSON , was convicted of hooliganism on DATE in a final judgment of ORG . He served his sentence in FAC DATE and DATE . Having served the entirety of his sentence , he was released on DATE .

The second applicant , PERSON , was convicted of robbery and murder and sentenced to whole - life imprisonment on DATE in a final judgment of ORG . The applicant is serving his sentence in FAC . On DATE the ORG of GPE , exercising the constitutional prerogative to grant clemency , commuted the applicant ’s whole - life sentence to a “ simple - life ” sentence ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .

NORP In DATE , while both applicants were serving their sentences , the following elections took place : elections to ORG on DATE and to ORG on DATE . No polling station was set up in the prison where the applicants were detained , as the relevant legislation excluded sentenced individuals from voting .

Subsequently , the second applicant was not allowed to vote in the elections to ORG on CARDINAL DATE and DATE , nor in ORG election on DATE .