Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . Until his release on DATE he had been detained in GPE . He was represented before ORG by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

ORG exercised their right of third - party intervention in accordance with LAW and were represented by ORG at ORG , PERSON . Their submissions concerned the applicant ’s complaint that he would be exposed to risk of ill - treatment in case of extradition to GPE .

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

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and several other ethnic NORP on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and planning an assassination attempt on PERSON , the president of GPE , in the course of his visit to GPE .

On an unspecified date the applicant left GPE and entered GPE in DATE .

On DATE the ORG placed the applicant on the international wanted list .

On DATE the ORG convicted some of the applicant ’s co - defendants of various crimes , including planning an assassination attempt on Mr PERSON .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s arrest in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG of GPE requested that its NORP counterpart extradite the applicant to GPE on several charges including participation in an illegal armed group and planning an assassination attempt on a public figure . The request contained assurances that the applicant ’s defence rights would be respected , that he would not be subjected to treatment contrary to LAW , and would not be sentenced to the death penalty .

Following the applicant ’s arrest in GPE , the NORP human rights organisation “ ORG with Political Prisoners ” issued a statement recalling that it had previously declared the applicant to be a person persecuted for political reasons because it believed that the criminal case against him for the planning of an assassination attempt on PERSON was fabricated and politically motivated .

On DATE the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of planning an assassination attempt on the Prime Minister of GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE sent its NORP counterpart another request for the applicant ’s extradition on charges of planning an assassination attempt on a public figure and several related charges in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant on DATE . The request contained assurances identical to those in the request of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE PERSON , an NORP member of ORG , wrote to the President of GPE urging him to prevent the applicant ’s extradition to GPE in view of the risk of ill - treatment and an unfair trial . Relying in particular on examples from the reports of ORG , she described the alleged serious ill - treatment suffered by a number of NORP at the hands of NORP law enforcement authorities and PERSON forces .

On DATE ORG of Ukraine ( “ the ORG ” ) decided to extradite the applicant to GPE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the extradition decision . He noted , in particular , that if extradited he would be deprived of the right to be tried in GPE and compensation for the damage caused to NORP victims of his crimes in GPE would be hindered , and that he was being persecuted by NORP authorities for political reasons . He also noted that proceedings concerning his asylum request in GPE were pending ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that he faced the risk of ill - treatment contrary to LAW , unfair trial and the death penalty in GPE . He referred to PERSON letter and the statement of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant sent a declaration renouncing his NORP citizenship to ORG of GPE .

On DATE the Odessa ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) examined the applicant ’s appeal in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer and upheld the decision . It found , in particular , that in the light of the assurances provided by the NORP authorities and the nature of the accusations against him , the applicant ’s allegations concerning the risk of the death penalty , ill - treatment and politically motivated prosecution were unsubstantiated . The court also held that the publications about the occurrence of torture in GPE in general did not prove that the applicant personally would be ill - treated . The court stated that the decision of DATE to dismiss the applicant ’s request for asylum ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) proved that the applicant was not a permanent resident of GPE , which would prevent his extradition under domestic law . The court took no decision concerning the applicant ’s detention pending extradition .

The applicant appealed against the decision of ORG , referring to essentially the same arguments as before and also stating that he had renounced his NORP citizenship , alleging that he had been ill - treated by the police following his arrest in GPE , and that he was suffering from partial amnesia and was unsure of his identity .

On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal ( “ the ORG ” ) examined the applicant ’s appeal against the decision to extradite him and upheld the extradition . The court referred to the assurances provided by the NORP authorities .

On DATE ORG of GPE revoked its decision of DATE and rejected the NORP authorities’ requests for the applicant ’s extradition on the ground that if extradited , he would face a risk that his rights guaranteed by ORG , DATE and DATE of the Convention would not be secured .

NORP In DATE a number of media outlets reported that the applicant was serving as leader of a battalion fighting on the side of ORG forces in the eastern regions of GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for political asylum with ORG of GPE ( “ the Migration Service ” ) , maintaining that he had never been involved in any terrorist activities and that his criminal prosecution in GPE was political repression in disguise . In particular , he was a member of a prominent family which used to have considerable influence in GPE before PERSON came to power ; his father used to chair an oil company in GPE and his uncle used to be the Speaker of ORG . Following Ramzan Kadyrov ’s rise to power , the family had been driven out of GPE . The applicant had publicly shared his dissatisfaction with the policies of PERSON and the NORP authorities in respect of GPE . His political views , in particular his support for a free and independent GPE , and his being a personal enemy of PERSON , were the real reasons for his persecution by the NORP authorities . He stated that numerous instances of torture and killings by NORP law - enforcement bodies and PERSON armed groups indicated that he would be tortured and killed if he were extradited to GPE .

In a report prepared following the examination of the applicant ’s asylum application , a head of section of ORG of ORG recommended that the application be refused . He found that the applicant ’s submissions concerning threats allegedly made against him in GPE in connection with negative statements about PERSON were not credible since he had been an ordinary citizen and had not been a member of any political group and that the applicant had been misleading the NORP authorities in order to delay his extradition to GPE . There were also indications of his being involved in terrorist activity , in particular because : he had shown interest in literature associated with the PERSON version of NORP ; his life partner PERSON had also displayed PERSON tendencies ; he had acknowledged that he had had links with persons prosecuted for terrorist activities . The report also referred to an internet publication of GPE , a NORP news agency , according to which the applicant ’s CARDINAL co - suspects had been convicted in DATE for planning an assassination attempt on PERSON . The report went on to note that there were no indications that the convicted co - suspects had been ill - treated . The report further stated that the NORP authorities had provided assurances that the applicant ’s rights would be guaranteed .

On DATE the NORP Regional Department of Refugee Affairs refused to initiate asylum proceedings in respect of the applicant , having found that his application was manifestly inadmissible . The ORG noted , in particular , that owing to the applicant ’s arrival in GPE in DATE , the DATE application lodged after his arrest was time - barred and that in any event his allegations of being a victim of political repression were ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of DATE before ORG . He argued that he had not missed the DATE time - limit for challenging the decision because the decision had been sent to his place of detention in GPE , without an explanation as to the procedure for challenging it . The applicant ’s lawyer had only met him on DATE , and then translated the decision for the applicant and explained the procedure for challenging it .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint without considering it on the merits . It held that the applicant had missed the DATE time - limit for challenging the decision of DATE since the decision had been served on him on CARDINAL DATE and he had had sufficient knowledge of NORP to understand it . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE a private flat in GPE , GPE , caught fire as a result of an explosion . On entering the flat , the firefighters discovered GPE , a NORP national , seriously burned , and the dead body of ORG , a NORP national . The police found traces of explosives in the flat and arrested GPE

On DATE the GPE police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant , GPE and PERSON ( deceased ) on suspicion of having intentionally caused property damage and of illegal handling of explosives . On DATE the GPE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) authorised the applicant ’s arrest .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . During the arrest a passport in the name of PERSON with the applicant ’s photograph in it was seized .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention for DATE pending a criminal investigation against him for intentional property damage and illegal handling of explosives .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the LAW ” ) charged the applicant and GPE with membership of a terrorist group , planning of terrorist acts , illegally handling explosives and intentionally causing property damage .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention until DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention pending criminal investigation until DATE .

On DATE the ORG additionally charged the applicant with having crossed the NORP border using a false identity document , while charges against him were amended from intentionally causing property damage to negligently causing property damage .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s co - accused , ORG , was extradited to GPE .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE the investigation was completed and the applicant was given time to study the case file .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of illegally handling explosives , negligently causing property damage , and forgery . It sentenced him to DATE , DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . As the length of time spent in pre - trial detention was deducted from this sentence , the applicant was released immediately .

Effective from DATE , a new LAW governing extradition procedures was added to the Code .

The relevant provisions of LAW of the Code read as follows :

ORG shall be the central authority concerning extradition of the accused ( suspect ) where the proceedings [ in the foreign ORG ] are at the stage of pre - trial investigations .

“ The extradition inquiry concerning circumstances capable of preventing the person ’s extradition shall be carried out by the central authority or , upon its instructions ( request ) , by the regional prosecutor ’s office .

Extradition arrest shall be applied until a decision on the extradition of the person concerned and his actual surrender ( extradition ) , but shall not last DATE .

Within this period , and not less than once DATE , the judge at the place of the person ’s detention shall check , upon the prosecutor ’s request , if there are grounds for further detention of the person or for his or her release .

“ A person ’s extradition to a foreign State shall be refused if :

CARDINAL ) the person ’s extradition is incompatible with GPE ’s undertakings under its international treaties ;

CARDINAL ) there are other circumstances envisaged by an international treaty to which GPE is a party .

“ Having examined the materials of the extradition inquiry , the central authority shall take a decision to extradite the person or to refuse [ his or her ] extradition to the foreign ORG . The decision shall be taken by the head of the central authority or his or her deputy .

If a decision to extradite the person is taken , that person shall be given a copy of the decision . If the decision has not been challenged before a court within DATE , actual transfer of the person to the competent authorities of the foreign State shall be organised . ”

“ A decision to extradite may be appealed against by the person concerned , his or her defence counsel or legal representative to a local court at the place of the person ’s detention .

The appeal shall be examined in a single - judge formation within DATE of the date of its receipt by the court . The hearing shall be held in the presence of the prosecutor , the person concerned , his or her defence counsel or legal representative , if the latter participates in the proceedings .

When examining the appeal , the judge shall not consider the question of guilt and shall not review the lawfulness of procedural decisions taken by the competent authorities of the foreign ORG in the proceedings against the person whose extradition is requested .

Following the examination , the judge shall take a reasoned decision :

CARDINAL ) rejecting the appeal ;

CARDINAL ) allowing the appeal and quashing the decision to extradite .

After the judge ’s decision quashing the decision to extradite takes effect , the person concerned shall be immediately released from detention .

An appeal against the judge ’s decision may be lodged with a court of appeal by the prosecutor who participated in the hearing before the court of first instance or by the person concerned , his or her defence counsel or legal representative , within DATE of the date of delivery of the impugned decision . The lodging of an appeal against the judge ’s decision is of suspensive effect . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW with respect to detention pending investigation and trial can be found in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

Under LAW , a person seeking to be recognised as a refugee or a person in need of complementary protection in view of a threat to his or her life , security or freedom in the country of origin may lodge an application for asylum with ORG in GPE . The application must be lodged within DATE of crossing the border , if the person entered GPE lawfully , or “ without delay ” in the case of unlawful entry .

Section CARDINAL lays down the procedure for preliminary consideration of applications for asylum , which must be completed within DATE . In particular , ORG holds interviews with the applicants , considers the information contained in the applications and relevant documents , and takes a decision on the admissibility of the applications . In taking this decision , it must decide whether “ documents for the consideration of the question of granting refugee status or the status of a person in need of complementary protection are to be prepared ” . ORG refuses to prepare such documents in respect of applications which are manifestly ill - founded ( do not concern the circumstances calling for protection ) , constitute an abuse of the right of application ( the applicant submits false identity information ) , or are submitted by persons whose previous applications were rejected as unsubstantiated and where the circumstances have not changed . Within DATE written notice of the refusal , indicating the reasons on which it is based and the procedure of appeal , is given to the applicants or their official representatives . An appeal may be lodged with the courts within DATE of the notification .

The relevant provisions of the ORG read as follows :

“ For the purposes of the uniform application of the legislation governing extradition to other GPE and the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms , ORG resolves that :

Having regard to the fact that the current legislation does not allow the courts independently to give permission for extradition of persons and that , pursuant to LAW and similar provisions of other international treaties to which GPE is a party , the extradition procedure is regulated solely by the law of the requested ORG ; the courts are not empowered to decide on this issue .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of incitement to aggravated murder in that he , together with another person , had incited a person who had owed them money to kill their competitors in the security business in GPE , and that for that purpose they had obtained machine guns and explosive devices .

An investigation in respect of the applicant was opened in ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) on DATE .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG remanded the applicant in custody under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion , risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges ) . The judge held that there was a risk that the applicant might suborn several witnesses who were to be questioned during the investigation , and that his clear determination to commit the offence at issue and its possible consequences justified his detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending and the seriousness of the charges .

The applicant ’s detention was extended on DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges ) . The investigating judge found that the witnesses had already been questioned and that therefore there was no reason to remand the applicant in custody on the grounds of risk of collusion . However , the judge reiterated that the applicant ’s clear determination to commit the offence and its possible consequences warranted the applicant ’s detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending and the seriousness of the charges .

On DATE the investigation in respect of the applicant was expanded to the offences of unlawful possession of firearms and explosives .

The investigating judge extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges ) using the same reasons as in his previous decision .

NORP The applicant appealed on DATE , arguing that the reasons put forward by the investigating judge were not convincing justifications for his detention .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the investigating judge .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s Office ( GPE državni odvjetništvo u ORG ) indicted the applicant in ORG on charges of incitement to aggravated murder and unlawful possession of firearms and explosives . Another individual , ORG , was also indicted in the same proceedings on charges of incitement to aggravated murder . Later , on DATE , criminal proceedings against another person , PERSON , on charges of trafficking in firearms were joined to the proceedings against the applicant and ORG in ORG .

A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE , relying on LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ There is a reasonable suspicion that the accused have committed the offences at issue . The fact that the second accused , PERSON , in an agreement with the first accused , ORG , twice went to GPE in order to find a machine gun and an explosive device suggest determination to commit the offences they are suspected of , and the fact that a larger quantity of unlawful weapons and explosive devices have been found in the possession of the second accused , PERSON , suggest that they might reoffend ...

The fact that the offence of [ aggravated murder ] was planned to take place in GPE centre near the M. bar , where a lot of young people gather , suggests to this panel that the circumstances of the offence are particularly serious ... “

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision with ORG ( PERSON ) arguing that the alleged offences at issue had never even been attempted and thus there was nothing which suggested that he might reoffend or that there were particularly serious circumstances warranting his detention .

ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal and on DATE reversed the decision of ORG by ordering the applicant ’s detention only under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . It held that the applicant ’s alleged determination to commit the offences suggested that he might reoffend but that the reasons put forward by ORG as to the seriousness of the charges were not relevant , because all the circumstances referred to were essentially subsumed under the risk of reoffending . It also explained that the reference to the possibility that the offence of aggravated murder would be committed in a public place was irrelevant , because the offence had never been attempted , let alone executed .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG returned the indictment to GPE Office and ordered it to conduct a further investigation , as not all the relevant circumstances had been established .

During the resumed investigation , on DATE the investigating judge of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating that his determination to commit the offences suggested that he might reoffend .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision , reiterating his previous arguments .

NORP The applicant ’s detention was further extended by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE under LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) relying on the alleged determination on the applicant ’s part to commit the crime , and on , which suggested that the applicant might reoffend if at liberty .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the remand in custody of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) arguing , inter alia , that it was impossible in practice for him to reoffend , because the alleged incitement to murder was in respect of a person who later became a protected witness and was at present cooperating with the prosecuting authorities .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded , noting :

“ The circumstances suggesting that the accused ORG and PERSON [ might reoffend ] can be observed from the indictment by which they are charged with having , for the purpose of obtaining material benefit and with reprehensible motives , incited a person who owed them money to kill others who were competitors in the security business in GPE , and that for that purpose they had obtained machine guns and explosive devices with a remote detonator and QUANTITY grams of plastic explosive , which they intended to plant under the vehicle of CARDINAL of the putative victims . All these circumstances show particular determination on the part of the accused . Therefore , ORG , as the second - instance court , considers that they should be remanded in custody under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in order to prevent them from continuing with such activity .

that they were determined to commit a murder , that argument is of no relevance .

Furthermore , both accused submitted numerous complaints concerning the conduct of the proceedings , to which they wrongly attached great significance , arguing that the first - instance court had failed to follow the instruction to return the indictment to the ORG Attorney ’s ORG for a further investigation , and that consequently the investigation was never completed , while the maximum period of detention during the investigation had expired .

The case file shows that the accused were arrested on DATE ... and that by extending their detention on DATE , after the investigating judge had returned the case file to ORG and the latter had submitted it to a CARDINAL - judge panel [ of ORG ] , the time - limit under LAW of LAW had not expired . In these circumstances , and given that this court , when deciding on the appeal against the decision to extend the detention , can not go into all the complaints submitted in the appeal , all such complaints are ill - founded ... “

A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) , holding as follows :

“ The accused are charged with developing a detailed plan to commit the offence of incitement to aggravated murder under LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW ; it was planned that the murder would be committed by another person , who owed them money . The first accused , ORG , had arranged the purchase of the firearms and explosives and the second accused , PERSON , had travelled twice to GPE and GPE to bring them to GPE , after which he had passed them to the other person , instructing him how to use them and telling him the time and place the killing was to take place . Then he [ together with the other person ] damaged the vehicle which CARDINAL of the victims should have driven , to ensure that the victim would use a car under which an explosive device had been planted .

This court finds that the said circumstances show particular determination on the part of the accused , and suggest that the first accused ORG and the second accused PERSON might reoffend if at liberty , and therefore their detention is necessary under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the above decision , arguing that it was impossible in practice for him to reoffend as suggested in the reasoning of ORG .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on DATE as ill - founded , reiterating its previous arguments .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating its previous reasoning .

The first hearing before ORG was held on DATE ; the applicant and the other accused pleaded not guilty . The trial court questioned CARDINAL witnesses and adjourned the hearing .

A further hearing was held on DATE ; the trial court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) , reiterating the reasoning from its previous decisions .

At a hearing on DATE the trial court examined the evidence from the case file and adjourned the hearing . Another hearing was scheduled for DATE , but was adjourned because the case file was at ORG .

At a hearing on DATE CARDINAL expert witnesses gave oral evidence .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ The accused are charged with developing a detailed plan to commit the offence of incitement to aggravated murder under LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW ; it was intended that the murder should be committed by another person , who owed them money . The first accused , ORG , had arranged the purchase of the firearms and explosives and the second accused , PERSON , had travelled twice to GPE and GPE to bring them to GPE , after which he passed them to the other person , instructing him how to use them and telling him the time and place the killing was to take place . Then he [ together with the other person ] damaged the vehicle which CARDINAL of the putative victims was supposed to drive in order to ensure that the victim would use a car under which an explosive device had been planted .

The period of the alleged criminal activity and the planning of the offences , including the incitement and instructions given to GPE , show a keen determination on the part of the accused to commit the offences , which suggests that the first accused ORG and the second accused PERSON might reoffend if at liberty , and therefore their detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is necessary . ”

Further hearings were held CARDINAL DATE , at which the trial court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL expert witness .

Hearings were also held on CARDINAL and DATE , at which the trial court questioned CARDINAL witnesses and the third accused , GPE

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .

At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard evidence from CARDINAL witness and the parties made their closing arguments .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on charges of incitement to aggravated murder and unlawful possession of firearms and explosives , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG against the first - instance judgment on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . He argued that the judgment had numerous substantive and procedural flaws .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment of ORG and ordered a retrial on the grounds of procedural errors in the way in which the evidence was taken during the trial .

ORG remanded the applicant in custody under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) referring to his determination to commit the offences and the circumstances in which the offences were allegedly committed .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) relying on the same reasons provided in its previous decisions .

The applicant ’s detention was further extended by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE under LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the third accused failed to appear for health reasons .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG asked ORG to extend the maximum period allowed for the applicant ’s detention , relying on LAW . It reiterated that the applicant should be remanded in custody on the grounds of risk of reoffending .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision on his detention of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which ORG dismissed as ill - founded on DATE .

ORG on DATE ordered ORG to examine the request of the PERSON State Attorney ’s Office of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that the applicant ’s detention should first be extended under LAW of LAW and only after the time - limit under that provision expired should it be extended LAW .

DATE . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW of LAW for DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ The accused , PERSON , has been in custody since DATE . His detention was extended by a decision of this court ... on DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , while his appeal was dismissed by a decision of ORG ... of DATE . Therefore , in view of the fact that on DATE the period of his detention will amount to DATE , which under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is the maximum period of detention , and that the non - final judgment of this court ... of DATE was quashed by the decision of ORG ... of DATE , [ this panel ] needs to examine whether his pre - trial detention should be extended under LAW of LAW ...

This panel finds that the detention of the accused , PERSON , should be extended for DATE [ of the general maximum period of detention ] , that is to say DATE .

... in view of the gravity of the offences the accused is suspected of , and the prescribed sentence , [ this panel ] , under LAW in conjunction with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , extends the overall period of detention for DATE [ of the general maximum period of detention ] , that is to say DATE , which should be sufficient to complete the proceedings . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , arguing that LAW was inapplicable in his case , since it concerned situations where an appeal against a first - instance judgment by which an accused had been found guilty was pending before the appeal court . In his case , however , the first - instance judgment had been quashed . He also contended that the extension of the time - limits for pre - trial detention was an exceptional measure applicable only where the trial court , even with maximum diligence , was unable to terminate the proceedings in time as a result of objective impediments . In his case , he saw no such circumstances and pointed out that ORG had provided no reasons in that respect .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ This court finds that LAW allows the court , in situations where the first - instance judgment and the second - instance judgment which quashed it have been adopted within the [ general ] time - limit provided for in LAW , to extend the detention first under LAW and then under LAW . In such cases , the period of detention under LAW should be extended only when the period of detention under LAW has expired , irrespective of whether the judgment has been upheld in the retrial or not .

Therefore , ORG considers that , contrary to the arguments in the appeal , the first - instance court lawfully and correctly extended the overall period of detention of the accused , PERSON , for DATE [ of the general maximum period of detention ] , that is to say DATE , under LAW . ”

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the defence of the first accused sought the withdrawal of members of the trial panel and the prosecution , and also of the President of ORG . These requests were dismissed as ill - founded on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) about the decisions on his detention reiterating the complaints that he raised before ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on DATE , arguing that there were no relevant or sufficient reasons for his continued detention .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded on DATE , endorsing the reasoning of ORG .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because CARDINAL of the defence lawyers was on sick leave .

A CARDINAL - judge panel further extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the applicant ’s defence sought the withdrawal of members of the prosecution team , on the grounds that they had abused their powers in dealing with his case .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision on his detention of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) reiterating his previous arguments .

DATE the applicant ’s request for the withdrawal of the prosecution team members was dismissed as ill - founded .

ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision on his detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on DATE quashed the decision of ORG on the grounds that a member of the CARDINAL - judge panel had previously been excluded from the case . It ordered ORG to re - examine the case speedily .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , this time in a different composition , extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) , reiterating the reasons in its previous decisions .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG which was dismissed on DATE as ill - founded .

A hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE was adjourned because the first accused was ill .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel again extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .

DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , arguing that ever since the first - instance judgment had been quashed there had been no activity in the proceedings . He also pointed out that , in view of the overall length of his detention and the first - instance court ’s lack of diligence in its conduct of the proceedings , his detention had become a prison sentence . Therefore , it was disproportionate to its purpose .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s Office , relying on LAW , asked ORG to extend further the maximum period of the applicant ’s detention already extended under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG allowed the request and extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ Since all [ permissible ] time - limits for detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been exhausted , the conditions have been met to extend the detention of the accused , PERSON , under LAW of LAW . Since the proceedings at issue are now before the first - instance court , it is reasonable to expect that in order to conclude the proceedings the detention should be extended for the maximum period of DATE . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision on his detention of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) as ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , reiterating his previous arguments . He pointed out in particular that his detention could not be extended cumulatively under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , since those provisions concerned CARDINAL different situations . In any event , it was only possible to extend the detention for the maximum period in exceptional circumstances , which did not exist in his case . He also argued that the trial court had not conducted his case with due diligence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG .

A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE , LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) , reiterating its previous arguments .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , reiterating his previous arguments , particularly lack of due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings .

DATE . Another hearing , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned because the first accused was ill .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered his release from detention . ORG noted that the applicant had been detained since DATE and that ever since the first - instance judgment had been quashed no hearing had been held in the proceedings at issue , and it was uncertain when a hearing would be held . It therefore considered that the applicant should be released in order to prevent the pre - trial detention from becoming a prison sentence .

The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON ( PERSON ) , is an NORP national born in DATE and currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .

He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

At the time of the events , the applicant served as a police major in ORG . He worked for ORG .

At TIME on DATE , at a location near the NORP - NORP border in the Imishli District , the applicant and an acquaintance ( PERSON ) received QUANTITY of marijuana from an NORP national who had smuggled the drugs through the State border . The CARDINAL accomplices put the packages of marijuana in the boot of the applicant ’s car . When they attempted to drive off , a number of ORG agents , who had surveilled the operation , tried to stop the car . Shots were fired and CARDINAL bullets reached the car ’s interior and wounded the applicant in the left leg . Despite his bullet wounds , the applicant managed to continue driving his car and escape from the scene .

The applicant and LOC drove QUANTITY , then disposed of the packages of marijuana and abandoned the car . Shortly afterwards the applicant and PERSON were arrested by the ORG agents . The applicant was first brought to the Imishli ORG of the MNS , but due to his wounds thereafter transferred to ORG for treatment .

The record of arrest compiled by the ORG agents on DATE also described the circumstances of the operation of DATE . The relevant part of the record reads as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL persons who were in the car tried to escape from the scene of the crime by speeding the car towards the ORG agents . Although the ORG agents fired a warning shot into the air , the driver tried to hit them by car and at that moment shots were fired at the car ’s tyres . CARDINAL persons in the car began to drive the car through the village in the direction of the fields situated in LOC ... ”

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted by ORG of the ORG in connection with above - mentioned incident , under ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

At TIME on DATE an investigator from the ORG issued a record of the applicant ’s detention as a suspect ( tutma protokolu ) in the presence of him and his lawyer . He was suspected of smuggling and the illegal preparation , possession , purchase , transportation and sale of narcotic substances under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant claimed his innocence and stated that he had not known that the packages had contained marijuana . He submitted that PERSON had lied to him about what they had contained , and that he had only gone to the border area at GPE ’s request . He further confirmed that after his arrest , he had first been taken to ORG of the ORG , and then to ORG , where he had been provided with medical assistance . He did not challenge the lawfulness of the force used against him during the operation of DATE .

On DATE the applicant was officially charged with smuggling and the illegal preparation , possession , purchase , transportation and sale of narcotic substances . On DATE the investigator questioned him again , now as an accused , in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant reiterated his previous statement . On DATE the applicant was brought before ORG which ordered his pre - trial detention for DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked the investigator to order a forensic examination to determine whether the applicant ’s state of health was compatible with his pre - trial detention , as he suffered from ischemic heart disease and had once suffered a heart attack .

On DATE the investigator dismissed the request after deciding that a forensic examination of the applicant was not necessary .

On DATE the investigator lodged the indictment with ORG .

According to the applicant , on DATE at a hearing before ORG in the course of the criminal trial , he submitted that on DATE the ORG agents had shot at his car without first firing a warning shot , as a result of which he had been wounded in the left leg . He further claimed that the agents had not been wearing vests identifying them as officers of the law - enforcement authorities and he therefore could not identify them in the darkness . The applicant also complained that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance during DATE of his detention in the ORG detention facility .

The proceedings before ORG ended on DATE with a judgment in which the court found the applicant guilty of smuggling and the illegal preparation , possession , purchase , transportation and sale of narcotic substances and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court also ordered that his car be confiscated as it had been used in the crime . The court did not in its judgment refer to the issues related to the operation of DATE and the alleged lack of adequate medical assistance following his arrest , as submitted by him on DATE ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the applicant appealed against his conviction , claiming his innocence . He complained about the assessment of the evidence by ORG and argued that the lower court had not taken into account when sentencing him to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction , but reduced his sentence to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , taking into account certain mitigating circumstances .

In DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal . He claimed his innocence , complaining about the assessment of the evidence by the lower courts .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE .

In accordance with LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) , criminal proceedings are instituted on the basis of a complaint by the victim of an alleged criminal offence . LAW of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which parties to criminal proceedings could challenge actions or decisions of the prosecuting authorities before a court . Article CARDINAL provides that a victim or his counsel may challenge such actions or decisions as , inter alia , the prosecution authorities’ refusal to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate them . The judge examining the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities’ actions or decisions may quash them if he or she finds them to be unlawful ( Article CARDINAL ) . The judge ’s decision may be challenged before an appellate court in accordance with the procedure established in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP.


CASE OF KARIN ANDERSSON AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants own property close to ORG , in the vicinity of a FAC area , the NORP network of nature protection areas established under LAW of DATE ( see further below at paragraph CARDINAL ) . Most of them live there ( permanently or on a part - time basis ) .

On DATE , ORG ( GPE ; hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) applied to the Government for permission , under LAW ( ORG ) , to construct a QUANTITY long railway section in a river area in the north of GPE ( constituting the final section of a railway called “ GPE , the total length of which is QUANTITY km ) . The ORG presented some alternative railway stretches , all located in a specified “ corridor ” , but recommended the CARDINAL named “ alternative east ” . The proposed railway construction concerned certain areas which were or were going to be part of Natura DATE .

It appears that CARDINAL of the present applicants own houses or land within the mentioned “ corridor ” : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON . Ownership of Mr PERSON ’s property was transferred to PERSON on DATE . The properties of the other CARDINAL applicants – houses and land in their ownership or owned houses located on non - freehold sites – are situated outside the “ corridor ” . The distance from their properties to the “ corridor ” or the specific stretch of the railway fixed in later proceedings vary ; the houses appear to be situated QUANTITY away whereas the closest piece of land is located QUANTITY from the “ corridor ” .

On DATE the Government , after having heard ORG , granted the application and allowed the construction of the railway in the proposed “ corridor ” under the condition , inter alia , that the ORG adopt a railway plan before DATE and also a specific plan for the realisation of the necessary environmental compensation measures in the Natura DATE areas . The plan on compensation measures had to be presented to the ORG before the railway plan was adopted . The ORG stated , inter alia , that the activity could be permitted , despite its harmful effect on the environment in a ORG DATE area , if there were no alternative solutions and the railway had to be constructed for reasons of public interest .

A number of individual property owners , including CARDINAL of the applicants in the present case – Ms Bring , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON DATE petitioned ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) for a judicial review of the case and requested that the ORG ’s decision be quashed . The property owners claimed that the decision contradicted NORP law as well as applicable ORG law , including the Habitats Directive . It was argued , firstly , that the decision contravened the general rule in LAW on the site to be chosen for activities and installations that may affect human health or the environment . This aspect allegedly had a direct and clear bearing on their civil rights . Secondly , they asserted that the ORG ’s decision violated NORP regulations on nature conservation by failing to consider relevant alternative sites for the railway .

On DATE ORG dismissed the petitions for a judicial review because it was not possible to determine who should be considered an interested party at that stage of the railway planning . The exact route of the railway would not be established until the railway plan had been drawn up . Until then , it could not be assessed with any certainty who would be affected to the extent that they were entitled to bring an action or what account should be taken of their interests . Further stating that the parties affected to a sufficient extent by the future railway would be able to obtain a judicial review of the later decision to adopt the railway plan , the court refused the petitioners locus standi .

One judge dissented , finding that the issue of locus standi in respect of each petitioner should be further investigated by the court in order to ensure that the individual interests were taken into account , having regard to the binding character of the ORG ’s decision in the later railway planning proceedings .

NORP In DATE and DATE the ORG applied to ORG ( länsstyrelsen ) in GPE for a permit to construct the railway in the specific ORG DATE area and to ORG ( miljödomstolen ) in ORG for permits to build CARDINAL bridges .

ORG granted a construction permit for the railway by a decision of DATE , which was subsequently appealed against to ORG .

ORG decided to examine the cases jointly . By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , considering itself bound by the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE on the permissibility of the railway project , the court decided to grant all the permits requested by the ORG .

On DATE ORG ( Miljööverdomstolen ) in GPE quashed ORG judgments and referred the cases back to the latter instance . The appellate court found that the ORG ’s decision had not contained a detailed examination of measures necessary to compensate for environmental harm caused by the railway project , and that these issues had to be settled as part of the determination of the construction permit requests .

On DATE ORG decided anew to grant the permits requested by the ORG . The court considered itself bound by the ORG ’s decision as to the permissibility of the railway project and thus limited its examination to the environmental compensation measures , as indicated by the decision of ORG .

CARDINAL applicants – PERSON and Mr PERSON DATE appealed against ORG judgment in so far as it concerned the permit for the railway construction . All applicants except PERSON appealed against the part which concerned the permit to construct the bridges .

By a judgment of DATE ORG affirmed the binding nature of the ORG ’s permissibility decision and approved the construction of the railway and the bridges with certain added conditions .

On DATE ORG ( Högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal and , thus , ORG judgment became final .

On DATE the ORG adopted a railway plan for the area in question .

CARDINAL applicants – all but PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and Mr DATE appealed to the Government against the railway plan . They essentially complained of the specific stretch of the railway , invoking , inter alia , nuisance such as noise and vibrations affecting the enjoyment of their property .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG referred to its decision on permissibility of CARDINAL DATE . It found that the specific stretch chosen in the railway plan was situated within the permitted “ corridor ” and thus rejected the appeals .

All of the applicants and several other petitioners turned to ORG and requested that it , by way of a judicial review , order the quashing of the ORG ’s decision . They claimed , inter alia , that , although their civil rights were affected by the planned railway , they had not had these rights considered and determined by a court , in violation of the Convention . As to the chosen location of the railway , they also asserted that the ORG ’s decision was contrary to provisions of LAW and LOC .

On DATE ORG , after having held a hearing in the case , rejected the petition , finding that the railway plan was in line with the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE on the permissibility of the railway project and that the proceedings for the adoption of the plan did not demonstrate any failings . The court considered that the question of permissibility of a railway project was within the power of the ORG , which had to take into account public interests such as environmental , industrial , economic and regional policy . The Government ’s permissibility decision was binding for the subsequent proceedings in that courts and other decision - making bodies could not examine issues that had been determined by that decision . Thus , in the proceedings concerning the construction permits requested by the ORG , the various instances could decide on conditions and other details but not on the general permissibility as defined in the ORG ’s decision . Similarly , in the third stage of the decision process – the adoption of the railway plan – it was for the authorities and courts to decide only on the precise location of the railway , within the area designated by the ORG ’s decision . The Government had not been obliged to review its decision of CARDINAL DATE on the permissibility of the railway project and the designation of the “ corridor ” in which the railway could be located . These issues could not be examined in the third stage of the decision process . ORG further stated that , if private interests were affected by the location of a railway project , judicial review could be obtained by petitioning the court in proceedings against the ORG ’s permissibility decision . The fact that the court , on DATE , had concluded that no individual petitioner could be considered to have locus standi in relation to the permissibility decision did not compel it to include in its current examination of the adoption of the railway plan the issues of permissibility of the project or its general location .

One judge dissented , considering that ORG judgment contravened its decision of DATE . She noted , inter alia , that the adoption of a railway plan – as opposed to the construction permits DATE had direct consequences for the individual as it entailed a right for the railway company , under certain conditions , to expropriate land . Consequently , the court , in the instant case , should have examined all the objections presented by the appellants , including the claim that there were better alternative locations for the railway . According to the dissenting judge , a full judicial review had also been foreseen by the court in its earlier decision .

It appears from the parties’ observations in the case that CARDINAL of the applicants ( including CARDINAL with houses or land situated outside the “ corridor ” ) have received some form of compensation as a consequence of the railway construction , either for land requisitioned or for reduced residential value or market value . In CARDINAL case , the change to noise - reducing windows was partly paid by the ORG . It is not clear whether the other applicants requested compensation . In the vicinity of some properties , whose owners have not received compensation , noise barriers have been erected in order to keep the noise from the railway below the applicable target values .


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

Kristina Pardalos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE and DATE the ORG on ORG and Compensation of Properties ( GPE i GPE dhe PERSON ) ( “ the Commission ” ) decided to recognise the applicant ’s inherited property title to CARDINAL plots of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m and restore them to the applicant .

On an unspecified date the Korça Regional Company for ORG ( GPE zonale e shpërndarjes së energjisë elektrike ) ( “ the defendant ” ) started the construction of a high - voltage line on the applicant ’s plots of lands .

On an unspecified date the applicant sought an injunction to suspend the construction works .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) issued an injunction and ordered the construction to be suspended . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) and ORG respectively upheld that decision .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against the defendant to bring the construction works to an end immediately , remove the high - voltage line and restore the site to its previous state .

On DATE the bailiff in the case discontinued enforcement proceedings concerning the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that the works had been suspended .

On DATE ORG ordered the immediate termination of the works on the applicant ’s plot of land , the removal of the high - voltage line and the restoration of the site to its former state ( ndalimin e punimeve si dhe duke detyruar ana e paditur të heqë kabllot , të dy linjat dhe ta kthejë pronën në gjendjen e mëparshme ) . ORG reasoned that the defendant had unlawfully constructed that line on the applicant ’s property .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . On an unspecified date the defendant lodged an appeal with ORG against the lower courts’ judgments .

On DATE the applicant requested that the bailiff enforce the judgment of DATE , as upheld by ORG on DATE . However , as the proceedings on the merits of the case were pending before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE ORG provisionally decided to stay the enforcement proceedings .

Subsequently , the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on the grounds that an examination of the applicant ’s action on the merits was pending before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld in a final judgment ORG judgment of DATE and ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE , following ORG judgment of DATE , the applicant again requested that the bailiff enforce the judgment of DATE .

DATE to DATE the bailiff unsuccessfully sought to enforce the final judgment . In particular , on DATE the bailiff sought to have the defendant comply voluntarily with the judgment . The bailiff further imposed a fine of CARDINAL NORP leks ( ALL ) on the defendant .

On DATE the bailiff again ordered the defendant to pay a fine for failing to comply with the final judgment .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the defendant informed the bailiff that the applicant was prepared to solve the dispute with the authorities by way of a friendly settlement .

On DATE the applicant informed the bailiff that the defendant had failed to reach a settlement with her . She requested the continuation of the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the bailiff imposed another fine on the defendant for failing to comply with the final judgment .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the bailiff and ORG ( PERSON i PERSON ) ( “ ORG ” ) for failure to comply with the judgment of DATE . It appears that on an unspecified date ORG discontinued the proceedings by virtue of a final judgment .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against ORG ( ORG ) ( “ AEC ” ) and the PERSON municipality for “ destruction of private property ” . On DATE the prosecutor ’s office discontinued the criminal proceedings in a final decision .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action against C.E.Z Shpërndarje sh.a , which had privatised ORG , claiming damages and loss of profit .

On DATE ORG decided to stay the proceedings and await the conclusion of the civil proceedings instituted by ORG against the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which had recognised the applicant ’s property rights .

On DATE ORG amended that decision and decided that the proceedings could continue . It appears that the case is still pending before the domestic courts .

On DATE ORG brought a civil action against the applicant to annul the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE on the grounds that the plots of land had belonged to and had been used by ORG since DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the freezing of the title to the applicant ’s plots of land ( vendim për marrjen e masës së sigurimit të padisë duke bllokuar pronën në PERSON ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG lifted the freezing order .

On DATE ORG decided , at the applicant ’s request , to stay the proceedings and await the conclusion of other civil and criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG respectively upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG discontinued its examination of the case on the grounds that ORG had failed to attend a hearing without good reason . It would appear that ORG did not appeal against that judgment and it became final on an unspecified date .

On CARDINAL other occasions ORG and ORG brought civil actions against the applicant to annul the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE . On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG discontinued its examination of the actions on the grounds that ORG and ORG had failed to attend hearings for no good reason . It appears that they did not appeal against either judgment and they became final on an unspecified date .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by Mr E. Reinecke , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

NORP The publishing company PERSON , registered in GPE , publishes DATE newspapers including PERSON , PERSON and Express . The chairman of the supervisory board of the publishing company is Mr PERSON , son of PERSON PERSON PERSON and PERSON , who died in DATE and DATE respectively .

NORP In DATE the applicants , journalists for the online magazine ORG , published an article concerning the so - called “ aryanisation profits ” ( “ NORP ” ) of NORP during the NORP regime and the role of the PERSON family in these activities . The article , which contained some CARDINAL pages and photos , entitled “ Discoveries about the publishing family PERSON in NORP times : No resistance , but aryanisation profits ” read in part as follows :

“ The publishing family PERSON , which has declared itself every now and then for DATE .... as being haunted by the NORP regime and being a member of the resistance , profited from aryanisation .... ”

“ DATE a congress took place in the adult TIME school covering the topic of “ aryanisation ” . There the journalist and historian PERSON sowed doubts . Niebel , who had no access to files of the tax offices , cited in his speech parts of the denazification file of PERSON , publisher of ORG during the NORP period and father of the present publisher PERSON . There the former publisher confessed to an unlawful appropriation of NORP real estate in DATE ... ”

“ As a matter of fact the Neven PERSON family took possession of QUANTITY houses in LOC .... The houses , respectively the real estate , belonged to the NORP merchant PERSON and his wife , PERSON . In DATE they were forced to emigrate , the NORP confiscated their fortune and the PERSON company interimpurchased the real estate for DATE . Afterwards PERSON , wife of PERSON PERSON , purchased the real estate . The price is not known ..... ”

“ Following the inquiries of PERSON , already in DATE the PERSON publishing company grabbed a house of the merchant PERSON in GPE via its mutual insurance company . PERSON was accused of “ racial defilement ” and died shortly afterwards .... ”

“ In DATE the publishing company PERSON and the widow PERSON reached an out - of - court settlement concerning compensation . This is the reason why the amount of money paid is not generally known . The same applies to the daughters of PERSON .... ”

These parts of the article referred to the following CARDINAL real estate purchases :

In DATE a mutual insurance company situated in GPE , and which insured the employees of the PERSON company , purchased real estate situated at CARDINAL GPE in GPE from Mr GPE , a NORP who was persecuted and died shortly afterwards . In DATE the legal heirs of PERSON renounced any restitution claims after having primarily lodged such claims .

According to the denazification file of Mr PERSON , in DATE PERSON bought real estate in Leyboldstraße in GPE , which was owned by a Mr A. ORG . Mr PERSON was a NORP who had emigrated in DATE . Therefore his property was liquidated by a curator . In DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON ( now known as PERSON ) reached a settlement concerning the structural condition of the property in DATE ( price , size , value and cultivation ) and restitution claims . In this settlement the property was declared as being in essence undeveloped except for cellar walls and concrete foundations .

Furthermore in DATE PERSON purchased real estate , located in LOC in GPE for CARDINAL PERSON . The vendor was the PERSON company , which had purchased the real estate DATE before at auction for CARDINAL PERSON . The former owner of the property was a company belonging to a NORP couple who had fled GPE in DATE .

NORP The chairman of the supervisory board of the publishing company , Mr PERSON , instituted an action for an interim injunction with ORG after the ORG article was published , in which he precisely indicated the parts of the article which he considered not to be true .

The GPE ORG and afterwards ORG issued an interim injunction and ordered the applicants to refrain from disseminating certain parts of the article .

On DATE ORG prohibited in particular any further publication of the following elements of the published article , subject to penalty ( “ strafbewährte LOC ) of MONEY for each contravention , under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Civil Code taken in conjunction with LAW , read in the light of the right to protection of personality rights ( “ ORG ” , see § § QUANTITY seq . , below ) :

“ ... to refrain from giving the impression that the plaintiff ’s family unlawfully enriched itself during the NORP regime with foreign fortune , in particular by statements such as “ the plaintiff ’s family PERSON made aryanisation profits when purchasing the real estate in Leyboldstr . DATE , GPE CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and FAC ” .

According to ORG , the relevant passages of the article in question amounted to a serious interference with Mr PERSON ’s right to the protection of his personality rights . ORG considered that the impugned statements had to be classified as statements of fact . A statement of fact had to be assumed when a passage of an article or an article as a whole led the reader to draw a peremptory conclusion from it . In ORG view , the article in question mainly made statements of fact because the term “ aryanisation profit ” , used in the context of the purchase of real estate , created the impression that the PERSON family had enriched itself unlawfully during the NORP regime with foreign fortune by abusing the predicament in which the NORP population found itself . The veracity of that statement could be proved . ORG found that , the impugned statement being a statement of fact and not a value judgment , the burden of proof concerning the veracity of the statement lay with the applicants . However , the applicants had failed to prove the veracity of the allegations .

NORP In particular , regarding the real estate in Leyboldstraße , ORG stated that the mere claim that the purchase price had been below the current market value was insufficient , because this was a general assumption due to the political situation in GPE at that time and the fact that NORP were persecuted and expropriated . The ORG statement that the property was a built - up area was contradicted by statements and proof provided by the plaintiff , Mr PERSON . He had stated that an old building had been demolished in DATE and a subsequent settlement between PERSON and Mr PERSON expressly declared that the property had not been developed in DATE , apart from concrete foundations and cellar walls . As a consequence , the applicants’ reference to an address book of GPE ( the “ GPE ’s address book ” ) as proof was considered to be too imprecise und therefore insufficient .

Concerning the real estate in LOC ORG found that the applicants had failed to substantiate that the PERSON family had exploited the Jews’ plight , firstly because the PERSON family had purchased the real estate DATE after the PERSON company had purchased it at auction for CARDINAL PERSON and secondly because the price paid by the PERSON family had exceeded the auction price by CARDINAL ORG . As this purchase did not indicate a clear exploitation of the Jews’ plight , the statements were to be classified as false . As far as the applicants offered a statutory declaration by the historian PERSON as proof of this allegation , the court held that in view of this finding there was no need to pursue the proof provided by the applicants .

With regard to the real estate in GPE ORG held that no profit had been made by the PERSON family because it had not been the PERSON family who had purchased the real estate , but a legally independent mutual insurance company situated in GPE and which insured the DuMont company ’s employees . Furthermore , other real estate , comparable to that in GPE , had been sold for similar prices around the same time .

The GPE Regional Court therefore concluded that the applicants had not proved the veracity of their statements as there had either been no profits made by the PERSON family or the evidence produced by the applicants had not been sufficient . As far as the applicants argued that the term “ aryanisation ” had to be classified as a value judgment , the court was of the opinion that , even when classified as a value judgment , it still had to be considered as ambivalent . It was necessary with ambivalent expressions to examine their admissibility on the basis of the interpretation which caused the most serious interference . Against this background the statements had to be regarded as untrue and thus were not protected by freedom of speech . Moreover , the court held that there had not been a legitimate interest in publishing the statements . It was true that the publication of untrue statements of fact could be justified . However , this was only the case if the person disseminating the information had tried sufficiently to verify the facts prior to publication and if any remaining doubts as to the truth of the facts had been made sufficiently clear . In the case at hand , the applicants had not even come close to exhausting all possibilities of establishing the facts and the article was far from being balanced coverage that also indicated doubts as to the truth of the statements .

As far as the plaintiff wanted the publication of other parts of the article to be prohibited , ORG allowed the action for CARDINAL part . For other parts the applicants made a declaration of discontinuance subject to penalty ( strafbewährte Unterlassungserklärung ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the judgment and refused to grant the applicants leave to appeal on points of law . It endorsed the reasoning of ORG . It expressly confirmed ORG finding that the statements were to be classified as statements of fact as they were open to objective verification and proof . Even if parts of the statements comprised value judgments , these were based on documented incidents like the denazification file of Mr PERSON , address books or files of the competent tax authority . As it was primarily these documents which were supposed to prove the conclusion that the PERSON family had participated in aryanisation profits , the main focus of the statements was not the expression of an opinion but a statement of facts .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaint about the refusal to grant them leave to appeal on points of law ( Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde ) , without giving further reasons .

On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . The applicants claimed a violation of their right to freedom of expression insofar as ORG and ORG had ordered them to refrain from giving the impression that the plaintiff ’s family had unlawfully enriched itself during the NORP regime with foreign fortune , in particular by statements such as “ the plaintiff ’s family PERSON made aryanisation profits when purchasing the real estate in Leyboldstr . DATE , GPE CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and FAC CARDINAL ” . The applicants claimed that ORG and ORG had omitted to clarify whether these passages of the article in question were to be classified as statements of facts or value judgments . The classification as “ ambivalent expressions ” was an oversimplification contravening ORG case - law .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the constitutional complaint without providing reasons .

The claim underlying the injunction was based on an analogy to Article CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , read in conjunction with the second sentence of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code taken together with LAW . It is the well - established case - law of the NORP courts that a person whose personality rights are jeopardised by another individual may DATE under certain specified conditions DATE lodge a claim against the latter pursuant to these provisions .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants are NORP nationals born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are currently serving prison sentences in GPE , following their conviction by the NORP authorities for drug trafficking , as described below .

NORP Criminal proceedings against the applicants

At the time of the impugned events , GPE , one of the applicants’ acquaintances , was in police custody accused of drug - related offences . In the context of a covert operation , GPE agreed to contact the applicants by phone in order to arrange a drug transaction . It appears that following several phone conversations between GPE and the first applicant , the latter agreed to deliver CARDINAL Ecstasy pills to GPE .

On DATE the prosecutor in charge of investigating S.R.B. ’s case issued an order ( ordonanta ) in which he authorised the intervention of CARDINAL undercover agents , namely GPE , ORG and GPE , who were mandated to purchase CARDINAL Ecstasy pills with the assistance of GPE The justification given for such an intervention was that , based on ORG ’s statements , there existed a strong indication that individuals as yet unknown to the police intended to commit the offence of drug trafficking . The undercover agents were necessary in the operation because the individuals in question “ belonged to a drug - dealing network which acted very cautiously , taking a lot of precautions in their activities and relying exclusively on highly trustworthy persons ” .

On DATE , the prosecutor authorised the undercover agents ORG and GPE to be provided with MONEY ( ORG ) , to be taken from the special funds of the police , with the purpose of using it to purchase the drugs .

On TIME the applicants entered GPE and met GPE in a petrol station in GPE . Subsequently , they requested to be directed to a mechanical workshop , where they asked to be left alone . S.R.B. was asked to wait for their phone call before returning to the garage with the money for the drugs .

NORP The applicants’ activity of removing the drugs from hidden compartments under the front passenger seat of the vehicle was video recorded by the investigators , based on an authorisation issued by the court on DATE .

After TIME , the applicants called S.R.B. to return to the garage together with the buyers , who were the undercover agents . CARDINAL of them , ORG , handed over LAW , and the second applicant verified the authenticity of some of the bank notes with a special pencil .

At the same time , the applicants presented the drugs , packed in zip - locked plastic bags , to the undercover agents . The investigators then intervened in order to ensure that the applicants were caught in flagrante delicto .

On DATE the applicants were placed in custody in the detention facility of the Timiş police station , in connection with drug - trafficking charges .

In his statement given before the prosecutor on DATE , the first applicant declared that he and the second applicant had come to GPE for personal reasons , namely to visit relatives . He claimed that they had intended to spend TIME at the home of GPE , a friend of theirs , and that they had no knowledge of the content of the plastic bags found in the garage .

The second applicant refused to give any statements , claiming that he was overwhelmed by the situation .

On DATE the first applicant specified before the prosecutor that when they had been in the garage , the CARDINAL individuals who had entered with S.R.B. had taken some plastic bags out of another car that was parked in the garage , and had placed them on a table . A third person who had come in later had taken out some money and asked him and the second applicant to count it , without indicating why .

NORP In his statement given before the prosecutor on DATE in the presence of his lawyer , S.R.B. admitted that he had agreed to cooperate with the police in order to benefit from the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL granting certain benefits to those who contributed to or facilitated the identification of perpetrators of crime ; he had therefore told the police that he had knowledge of a group of people who was involved in the international trafficking of Ecstasy pills . With the permission of the prosecutor , he then contacted the first applicant on the phone ; the latter agreed to bring to GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL Ecstasy pills for the price of CARDINAL ORG . Several other phone calls were made in order to arrange the details of the transaction , which took place on TIME . S.R.B. confirmed that the phone calls and his being taken out of custody for the operation had been approved by the prosecutor .

On DATE the applicants and S.R.B. , were charged with drug - related offences .

During the proceedings before the first - instance court , namely until the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicants pleaded not guilty , claiming that they had had no knowledge of the plastic bags , which they believed had been placed in the garage by the CARDINAL persons who had accompanied GPE , in order to set them up .

Up until the same hearing , GPE , legally assisted by PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON and his substitute lawyer , Mr GPE , maintained the statements he had given before the investigating authorities .

At the hearing of DATE the court watched the video recordings made on TIME to CARDINAL DATE , in the presence of the applicants , S.R.B. and their respective lawyers . The recordings were not contested and their authenticity was not questioned .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the applicants , then represented by lawyer GPE , changed their plea and claimed that they had been pushed to commit the offence by the investigators , who had acted as agents provocateurs . They invoked in their defence the ORG ’s case - law in relation to police entrapment , namely PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-IV ) and PERSON GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The applicants contended that they had first declined GPE ’s proposal , but had finally agreed to deliver the drugs to GPE in order to help GPE , who had claimed that he had been facing financial difficulties . The first applicant stated that he had been called by S.R.B. on a DATE basis for DATE . Each time he had refused ORG ’s proposal , and each time the latter had increased his offer , namely from QUANTITY per pill initially to the final price of QUANTITY per pill .

At the same hearing , S.R.B. also changed his statement and alleged that he had been coerced by the police to act as he had . He stated that during the telephone negotiations , the investigating authorities had asked him to increase both the quantity of pills requested and their price so that the first applicant would accept the transaction . He claimed that he had known the applicants as drug consumers , but not as drug dealers . He mentioned that some of the conversations he had had with the first applicant on a mobile phone had been recorded .

On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicants to fifteen years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking . In its ruling , the court relied on the video recordings made on DATE on which the applicants had been caught red - handed by Timiş police officers , as well as on the statements given by witnesses , including GPE and the undercover agents .

The court ruled that the procedure used by the applicants to conceal the drugs showed that they were experienced in international trafficking of narcotic drugs and had sought to make a significant profit , while the operation to catch them red - handed could not be considered as entrapment . The court found that the method used by the applicants to hide the drugs in the cavities of the front passenger seat of the vehicle and the large quantity of drugs that they managed to transport across several borders showed that they were not unfamiliar with drug trafficking .

The court held that GPE ’s change of testimony could not be taken into account , as there was no other evidence to corroborate it and it contradicted his previous testimonies .

The applicants appealed against that judgment .

On DATE the Timişoara Court of Appeal heard the applicants and S.R.B. They all maintained their previous statements according to which GPE , coerced by the police , had incited the applicants to commit the crime .

At the hearing , the applicants also submitted a request that the prosecution make available the recordings of the telephone conversations between GPE and the first applicant , or at least a list of those conversations and of the telephones used . The applicants argued that the recordings proved on the one hand that S.R.B. had been coerced to cooperate with the police and on the other hand that there had been a high degree of incitement in the negotiations in order to persuade them to accept the deal .

The court allowed the request .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG and ORG submitted that such recordings did not exist because the court had not been requested to authorise the recording of the phone conversations . Furthermore , according to the indictment , it was S.R.B. who had asked to be allowed to contact the applicants , under the supervision of the prosecutor , in order to take advantage of the lenient conditions prescribed in LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

By its judgment of DATE , the appellate court upheld the lower court ’s judgment .

The court stated that the authorities had been legally entitled to bring to the attention of GPE the benefits of cooperating with the police by virtue of LAW of PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL , a reduction of his sentence .

The ORG allegation that they had been entrapped was refuted by the court , which noted that the international case - law they had invoked was not applicable . In the case of PERSON , the undercover agent and the collaborator had dealt with the applicant in person , while in PERSON the applicant had been contacted by the agent claiming to be an acquaintance of the collaborator , whereas in the present case the applicants had never been contacted by the undercover agents , since GPE had taken the initiative to ask to be allowed to make contact with the applicants in order to benefit from LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

Furthermore , in the present case the applicants had freely chosen to travel to GPE with the drugs . Nothing had prevented them from refusing PERSON ’s proposal .

The applicants further appealed against that judgment . They maintained before ORG and ORG that they had been entrapped , having been incited to sell drugs by S.R.B. He in turn had been forced to incite them to do so by the investigators , who had promised him a reduction in his sentence .

The applicants also denounced the use of the undercover officer ORG , who had sought , through GPE , to purchase the drugs .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG and Justice , taking into account as a mitigating factor the applicants’ lack of a previous criminal record , partly allowed the appeal and reduced their sentences to DATE imprisonment . ORG upheld the lower courts’ reasoning in dismissing the entrapment pleas . It held that GPE , interested in the reduction of his sentence , had collaborated with the police and contacted the applicants in order to buy drugs ; however , the applicants had had the opportunity to refuse the transaction proposed by him . Therefore , the court considered that the applicants’ pleas of entrapment were unfounded .

B. Conditions of detention

As from DATE , the applicants were remanded in custody in the NORP police station detention facility . According to the Government , the applicants were placed in separate cells measuring QUANTITY , which they shared with CARDINAL other inmates .

On DATE the applicants were transferred to PERSON . The Government submitted that the cells in which the applicants had been placed measured QUANTITY , and were shared by a total of CARDINAL inmates .

On DATE the applicants were transferred to ORG , where they were placed in cells measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL beds .

On DATE the applicants were transferred to FAC , where they remained until DATE ( the first applicant ) and CARDINAL DATE ( the second applicant ) , when they were transferred to ORG in order to be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence in GPE .

The Government pointed out that the applicants had had access to clean sanitary facilities as well as to hot and cold water , in accordance with a specific schedule .


CASE OF ZHEBRAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

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

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON ( also spelled as PERSON ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , and

( CARDINAL ) Mr Salavdi Zhebrailov , born in DATE .

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Balavdi ( also spelled as LOC , born in DATE . The third applicant is PERSON ORG brother . The applicants reside in the village of PERSON , GPE .

At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL men wearing uniforms and armed with assault rifles burst into the applicants’ property at CARDINAL FAC in GPE . CARDINAL of the intruders were wearing masks . The applicants inferred that the intruders were law - enforcement officers . The men ordered the applicants to lie down and grabbed hold of Mr GPE and the third applicant , who was in his underwear . They then dragged them outside , firing several shots in the air to prevent the first and second applicants , as well as their relatives PERSON . and ORG , from following them . The men threw the PERSON brothers into a ORG vehicle with a beacon on the roof and marked “ police ” ( милиция ) , which was parked QUANTITY away from the applicants’ house , and drove off .

On the outskirts of PERSON , Mr GPE and the third applicant were transferred from the UAZ vehicle to a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle driven by officer PERSON CARDINALnd Regiment of the Road Police of the Ministry of the Interior of GPE ( hereinafter “ the CARDINALnd regiment ” ) . The VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle took the road leading to ORG and on the journey the men physically assaulted the PERSON brothers . After a while the car passed through a checkpoint and Mr PERSON and the third applicant were taken to the premises of the CARDINALnd regiment . The third applicant recognised the premises because he had come there DATE with a friend to apply for a job .

Upon arrival the ORG brothers were put in a cell in a basement , beaten with rifle butts and interrogated about a pistol . After a while they were separated and the third applicant was placed in a cell with another arrestee of DATE . From his cell the third applicant could hear Mr PERSON screaming whilst being beaten .

Shortly thereafter the persons , whom the applicants considered to be officers of the CARDINALrd regiment , returned and physically assaulted the third applicant , saying that Mr ORG had confirmed that the third applicant had a pistol and threatening to take the latter to the military base in GPE . They kicked and beat the third applicant all over his body and also hit him several times on the head with a rifle butt . DATE they dragged the third applicant outside , gave him police trousers and a shirt belonging to his brother and pushed him into a grey UAZ vehicle equipped with a partition for ORG transport . The car carrying the third applicant and QUANTITY police officers passed through a checkpoint and after a short time stopped in the vicinity of the “ northern market ” in PERSON , where the third applicant was released . The third applicant then went to the home of an uncle of his who lives in PERSON , from where the third applicant ’s relatives took him home on TIME on DATE .

Upon his return home , the third applicant had numerous bruises on his chest , back and legs and also wounds on his head , sustained as a result of the blows with the rifle butt .

On DATE the third applicant ’s relatives took him to the local hospital . While queuing there , the third applicant spotted CARDINAL of his abductors , officer PERSON CARDINALnd regiment . Fearing reprisals , the applicants immediately left , without obtaining medical assistance . At home the third applicant was treated by a family friend PERSON , a nurse . She bandaged his head and gave him medication . As a result of the ill - treatment the third applicant could barely walk . He had to stay at home for DATE .

The applicants have had no news of Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov since his abduction .

In support of their account of events , the applicants furnished written statements by PERSON . and ORG dated DATE and DATE , and detailed written statements by the first to third applicants dated DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .

The Government submitted that the national investigation had established that on TIME , unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had burst into the applicants’ property and had abducted Mr PERSON and the third applicant . The abductors had assaulted the third applicant and then released him .

The Government submitted CARDINAL pages from criminal case - file no . DATE which was opened to look into the events of DATE . The submitted documents covered the period from DATE . Many of the documents furnished by the Government were incomplete , such as witness statements submitted only in part . Some documents were illegible . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .

The local police were informed of the abduction of the ORG brothers at TIME on DATE . At TIME on DATE a group of police officers arrived at the applicants’ property . They inspected the crime scene , seized a bullet cartridge found during their inspection and interviewed QUANTITY eyewitnesses , including the applicants . The interview records and police ORG reports referred to the fact that the abductors had worn camouflage uniforms , carried assault rifles , used a UAZ vehicle ‒ with a beacon and a muddied licence plate bearing the inscription “ Grozny ” ‒ as well as a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle with blackened windows and licence plate number “ CARDINAL ” , and had fired shots into the air . In the third applicant ’s interview record , he described in detail the circumstances of the abduction and the ensuing events , including his alleged ill - treatment . He also explicitly stated that he and his brother had been detained at DATE LOC and stressed that the men who had interrogated them and assaulted them had not concealed that they belonged to the police .

On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office ( hereinafter “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) instituted a criminal investigation into the events of DATE under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in case no . DATE .

The ballistic examination of the bullet cartridge seized at the crime scene , carried out on DATE , established that the bullet could have been shot by an ORG assault rifle and that the gun could be identified .

In the ensuing period DATE and DATE the investigators mainly re - interviewed the individuals questioned by the police on DATE . They also questioned some further witnesses ‒ residents of Gekhi ‒ some of whom confirmed the applicants’ account of events ; others stated that they had learnt about the abduction from the applicants . The third applicant ’s uncle , ORG . , interviewed in DATE , stated that when the third applicant had arrived at his home in PERSON on TIME DATE , his head had been covered in blood . When interviewed as a witness in DATE , PERSON stated that after the third applicant ’s return home in DATE , she had treated him for wounds to his head and had given him pain - killing injections .

The investigation in case no . DATE was suspended in DATE , DATE , DATE and on the latest occasion on DATE . Supervising prosecutors repeatedly set aside those decisions , ordering the investigation to be resumed and pointing to the ORG failure to take a number of important steps . For instance , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and then again , as late as on DATE , the supervising prosecutors pointed out the ORG failure to inspect the LOC of the CARDINALnd regiment and verify the allegation of the involvement of its officers in the crime with the participation of the third applicant , in spite of his specific assertions that he had been detained on those LOC and that the regiment officers had not concealed that they belonged to the police . The investigators , who had on various dates forwarded several information requests to local law - enforcement agencies to verify those allegations , were instructed to resume the proceedings and take the necessary steps . From the documents submitted it is unclear whether the requested steps were taken .

The investigation in case no . DATE is still pending .

On DATE ORG dismissed as unfounded the ORG complaint that the investigation had been ineffective and that the ORG had refused to allow the applicants access to the case file . The court stated that the investigators had taken all possible investigative steps and that the applicants’ arguments concerning the procrastination of the investigation were not convincing .

On DATE the investigators granted the third applicant victim status in criminal case no . DATE and ordered his medical examination .

Expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE stated that the third applicant had CARDINAL scars on the top of the head , which could have been sustained in DATE as a result of the impact of a blunt , firm object .

On DATE , in the light of the expert ’s findings , the investigators also classified the ORG acts LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( application of physical force to another person , causing physical pain but not resulting in health damage ) .