Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

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

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

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

At the time of the events giving rise to this application , the applicant was a conscript soldier ( private rank ) serving at the ORG gendarmerie station in GPE .

According to the information provided by the applicant in his application , on DATE the commander of the ORG gendarmerie station , ORG , ordered him and another conscript , PERSON , to make some poles for the purpose of tethering the guard dogs of the station . Accordingly , the applicant and ORG found some metal rods and cut them in CARDINAL . When looking for tools in the generator room of the station to straighten the curved ends of the poles , the applicant found what he thought to be a used mortar shell , which he believed presented no risk of exploding , and decided to hit the poles with it . The mortar shell exploded upon impact with the metal pole , as a result of which the applicant lost a finger and a toe , and ORG lost both his feet . The applicant was first taken to ORG in GPE , and was then transferred to ORG in GPE for further medical treatment .

It appears that the commander of the gendarmerie station , ORG , lost consciousness after the incident due to anxiety and was also taken to ORG , where he was given sedatives .

On DATE the GATA Military Hospital issued a medical report , declaring the applicant unfit for military service on account of the injuries he had sustained . According to this report the third finger of his left hand , the fifth toe of his left foot and the fourth toe of his right foot had had to be amputated . The applicant had also sustained various fractures to his feet and suffered from some loss of vision in his left eye . This report was approved on DATE .

The PERSON military prosecutor ’s office initiated an investigation of its own motion into the circumstances of the incident . Accordingly , all the evidence at the site of the incident was photographed and recorded , and an incident report was prepared on DATE . The military prosecutor also took witness statements from CARDINAL soldiers serving at the ORG gendarmerie station . The pertinent witness statements are summarised below :

- Lt . H.A.S. :

“ ... while PERSON was in the emergency room [ at the hospital ] , the military prosecutor called me ... he asked to talk to PERSON told the [ prosecutor ] that he had found an old [ mortar shell ] DATE , which he had placed on the roof of the station , and that he did not know how the [ mortar shell ] had ended up at the scene of the incident . ”

- Sgt . PERSON :

“ ... I first saw the bomb in DATE . When I asked the station commander what it was , he told me it was unexploded ordnance . ”


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant ’s daughter was monitored during her pregnancy by Dr GPE , a gynaecologist working at ORG . She was examined on a DATE basis and her pregnancy developed normally .

On DATE , Dr I.M. performed a routine check - up on the applicant ’s daughter when she was DATE pregnant . According to the applicant , on that occasion Dr GPE informed her daughter that she needed to be hospitalised for further investigations because an imminent premature birth was suspected .

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter was admitted to hospital with the diagnosis of imminent premature birth and sub icterus of unknown aetiology .

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter was examined and blood samples were collected because it was suspected that she was suffering from viral hepatitis and an internal condition . She was also suffering from pain in the lumbar region and food poisoning was suspected because she had stated that she had eaten mushrooms picked from the forest . She was treated with ORG ( a vasodilator , prescribed for peripheral vascular disease associated with cerebrovascular insufficiency and premature labour ) and other medication . According to the applicant , as a result of this treatment large ecchymoses caused by the rupture of blood vessels appeared on her daughter ’s legs and abdomen .

On TIME the medical condition of the applicant ’s daughter worsened .

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter was transferred to the intensive care unit and her condition continued to deteriorate .

According to the applicant , after repeated requests from her and her son - in - law , Dr GPE agreed to contact PERSON from ORG located in GPE . PERSON was a university professor . When he received information about the patient ’s condition and treatment , PERSON diagnosed the applicant ’s daughter with PERSON syndrome ( an exceptionally serious prenatal condition ) and asked PERSON to perform an emergency C - section in order to save the mother ’s life .

According to the applicant , PERSON refused to perform the emergency C - section , but eventually agreed that the applicant ’s daughter could be transferred to ORG in GPE .

The applicant ’s daughter was transferred by ambulance to ORG , QUANTITY away from GPE , unaccompanied by a doctor . Her condition worsened during the transport .

She was admitted to ORG in a coma , with the diagnosis of GPE syndrome . An emergency C - section was performed TIME after she arrived at the hospital . She died TIME after the surgery from cardiac arrest , despite resuscitation manoeuvres . The applicant ’s granddaughter died on DATE from cardiac arrest , despite resuscitation manoeuvres .

On DATE ORG initiated of its own motion a criminal investigation into the death of the applicant ’s daughter . They carried out an examination of the body , took photographic evidence and they interviewed PERSON , who had assisted PERSON during the surgery , as well as the applicant ’s son - in - law .

On DATE a post - mortem report was produced in respect of the applicant ’s daughter ’s and granddaughter ’s deaths at ORG request . It concluded that the cause of the applicant ’s daughter ’s death had been cardio - respiratory and hepatic - renal insufficiency with brain hypoxia . In addition , the applicant ’s granddaughter ’s death had been caused by lung and brain hypoxia .

On DATE , ORG produced a forensic necropsy report . It noted amongst other things that according to the serology examination report no spores of poisonous mushrooms were found . It concluded that the death of the applicant ’s daughter was pathological and was caused by hepatic - nephritis and generalised haemorrhagic vasculopathy , with cardio - respiratory and circulatory insufficiency . In addition , the assessment of the medical assistance provided to the victim during pregnancy and upon giving birth had to be made , after medical documents were adduced , by a review commission ( comisia de avizare ) composed of obstetrics and gynaecology experts .

On CARDINAL DATE , ORG , sitting as a review commission , informed ORG that they approved the conclusions of the forensic necropsy report of DATE as scientifically grounded and based on the medical data included in the report . In addition , it found that there had been no omissions in the techno - medical treatment of the victim ( în atitudinea tehnic - medicală față de victimă nu se constată omisiuni ) .

On DATE , the applicant ’s son - in - law lodged a criminal complaint , with no civil claims , with ORG , requesting an investigation into his wife ’s and daughter ’s deaths following his wife ’s admission to ORG in GPE . His complaint was registered on DATE with ORG under criminal file no . CARDINAL .

On DATE , the applicant ’s son - in - law lodged a second criminal complaint , with no civil claims , with ORG attached to ORG ( “ ORG ” ) against the medical personnel of ORG and ORG in GPE . He relied on LAW , and argued that the medical personnel had been medically negligent . In addition , he contended amongst other things that the criminal investigation lacked the required speediness . The complaint was registered on DATE with ORG under criminal file no . CARDINAL .

By an order of DATE ORG decided to join the criminal files nos . CARDINAL and DATE and not to open criminal proceedings ( neînceperea urmăririi penale ) in the case . It held , on the basis of the medical evidence , the forensic necropsy report and the approval of the review commission of CARDINAL DATE , that the death of the victim had had natural causes and had not been induced by any medical error . Subsequently , the order was notified to the applicant ’s son - in - law and he challenged the order before the superior prosecutor .

On DATE , the applicant ’s son - in - law challenged the order before ORG . His complaint was subsequently referred to ORG .

On DATE , the superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant ’s son - in - law ’s challenge to the order of DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant ’s son - in - law lodged a criminal complaint against Dr GPE with ORG for involuntary manslaughter following the deaths of his wife and daughter . The complaint was registered under criminal file no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s son - in - law that the criminal investigation concerning PERSON was pending ; that he would be heard after the medical authorities had submitted the relevant medical and forensic documents ; and that once the investigation had ended he would be notified of the outcome .

On DATE the applicant ’s son - in - law was heard in respect of the circumstances of his wife ’s death .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to help them clarify certain aspects of the case and to explain : ( a ) if PERSON had acted correctly by hospitalising the patient and by giving her the treatment he did ; ( b ) if the treatment with ORG was appropriate for the patient ’s condition and if the treatment had influenced the deterioration of her condition ; ( c ) what were the possible causes of the patient ’s death occurring soon afterwards ; ( d ) what would have been the patient ’s chances of survival , given her diagnosis , if the surgery had been performed as soon as her condition had deteriorated .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , Dr GPE was heard in respect of the circumstances of his patient ’s death .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that given his patient ’s diagnosis Dr GPE had had a duty to carry out haemolysis and other blood tests in order to identify a state of pre - eclampsia , given that the patient had been hospitalised with sub icterus . In addition , the prompt treatment recommended in case of suspicion of GPE syndrome would have been the immediate evacuation of the pregnancy in order to avoid aggravation of the hepatic and vascular lesions . Furthermore , with careful monitoring of the mother and of the foetus as well as prompt treatment , the deaths might have been avoided . The fact that the patient reached ORG in GPE in a serious condition suggested inadequate monitoring . The absence of a diagnosis for DATE aggravated the patient ’s condition . Given the doctor ’s aforementioned duties , he should have been aware of the evolution of a state of preeclampsia , and he was obliged to exhaust all the available remedies to avoid it and treat it . The extremely low level of thrombocytes in the patient ’s blood in GPE was an important aid to a suspicion of this type of complication and an indication that prompt intervention was necessary .

On DATE , following Dr I.M. ’s objections , ORG reiterated before ORG attached to ORG in GPE ( “ ORG ” ) the same questions raised before ORG on DATE , and asked it to help them clarify those aspects of the case and to provide explanations .

On DATE and DATE , ORG asked ORG to provide its conclusions in respect of their request from DATE . It emphasised that the conclusions were necessary to solve the case , and that the victim ’s family had complained repeatedly before the domestic authorities about the lack of promptness of the criminal investigation .

On DATE the applicant complained before the superior prosecutor attached to ORG that the criminal investigation lacked promptness and had failed to clarify the circumstances of the GPE deaths . She stated that the last written notification received concerning the case had been the information note of DATE . She also requested to be informed of the outcome of the investigation .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that ORG had been asked to produce a forensic expert report in the case . The applicant was also informed that as soon as ORG report was available a lawful solution would be issued in respect of the case and that she would be notified about it .

On DATE ORG approved the note ( avizul ) produced by ORG on DATE with additional explanations . In particular , it noted amongst other things that while she was in hospital the applicant ’s daughter stated that she had eaten forest mushrooms . At the time there was another patient in the hospital suffering from mushroom poisoning . This caused her medical condition to be blamed on the mushrooms , which delayed the Hellp syndrome diagnosis . It also noted that during the applicant ’s hospitalisation on the intensive therapy unit the applicant ’s daughter condition worsened . PERSON was contacted by phone and he suggested that the pregnancy should be evacuated . Given the patient ’s serious condition and the local intensive therapy possibilities ( posibilitățile locale de terapie intensivă ) , in order to solve the case , PERSON was contacted and he accepted that the patient be transferred to ORG . It further noted that according to the post - mortem report the patient had displayed symptoms of hepatic - nephritis and generalised haemorrhagic vasculopathy and subsequent cardio - respiratory insufficiency . It concluded that the actions of ORG staff could be explained from a medical standpoint , in the context of the patient ’s anamnesis and given that according to the information available and on the basis of the patient ’s symptoms they could have also concluded that the patient ’s condition had been caused by mushroom poisoning , and not by PERSON syndrome as turned out to be the case . There were similarities in the symptoms of the CARDINAL medical conditions .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG decided not to open criminal proceedings against PERSON for involuntary manslaughter , on the ground that such an unlawful act had not taken place .

On DATE the applicant requested information from ORG about the status of the criminal investigation and the measures taken in the case . She also accused the authorities investigating the case of procrastination and of waiting for Dr GPE ’s criminal liability to become time - barred .

On DATE , ORG informed the applicant that the criminal investigation against Dr GPE had been terminated by the order of CARDINAL DATE , and that the aforementioned order had been communicated to her son - in - law . Also , it noted that the same information had been communicated to the applicant on DATE .

On an unspecified date , the applicant challenged the order of CARDINAL DATE before the superior prosecutor attached to ORG .

On DATE , the superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the applicant ’s challenge .

On DATE , the applicant challenged the orders of CARDINAL DATE and DATE as well as those of CARDINAL DATE and DATE before ORG .

On DATE ORG declined jurisdiction to examine the case in favour of ORG , on account of the nature of the offence under investigation .

On DATE , the applicant lodged a request with ORG seeking the transfer of the file to a different district court .

On DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s request and ordered the transfer of the file for examination to ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the file was registered with ORG .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s and her son - in - law ’s challenge against the order of CARDINAL DATE , cancelled the order , and referred the file back to the prosecutor ’s office for criminal proceedings to be opened against Dr GPE for involuntary manslaughter . The challenge to the order of DATE rendered by ORG was dismissed as lodged out of time .

The court considered that the criminal investigation had not been complete , and that additional evidence was needed . It held that the decision not to open criminal proceedings had been based on the CARDINAL forensic expert reports , but forensic expert reports had in fact not been asked for by the investigating authorities and had not been produced in the case . The document produced on DATE was in fact a note of ORG in response to the investigating authorities’ request for clarification of some aspects of the case . The aforementioned documents did not have the content of a forensic expert report produced according to law . The same considerations applied to the document issued by ORG on DATE .

According to the court , a forensic expert report was essential evidence in cases of suspected involuntary manslaughter and it was required when medical negligence had supposedly been the cause of death . Also , the content of ORG note of DATE which indicated a possible medical error by PERSON made a forensic expert report even more necessary .

The court considered that essential aspects of the case needed to be clarified , namely to establish the cause of death and to examine whether Dr GPE had administered medical treatment in accordance with his professional obligations , and , if such treatment had been inappropriate , whether this had had any causal link with the deaths of the applicant ’s daughter and grand - daughter . In addition , the question of whether the applicant ’s daughter had eaten forest mushrooms had not been entirely clarified . Dr GPE ’s statement that the applicant ’s daughter had eaten the aforementioned mushrooms had not been confirmed or rebutted by any other evidence . The information concerning the consumption of mushrooms found in the clinical observation chart was also added there by PERSON Furthermore , the reasons why the applicant ’s daughter was not accompanied by a doctor during her transfer by ambulance remained unclear . Consequently , the court ordered a forensic expert report to be produced which would establish whether : ( a ) the doctor had been diligent enough to correctly establish the diagnosis ; ( b ) the actual diagnosis had been established on the basis of the symptoms and the investigations made in the case ; ( c ) the correct diagnosis could have been established on the basis of supplementary tests and examinations which should have been performed ; ( d ) the medical treatment had been appropriate ; ( e ) the medical intervention should have been performed at ORG ; ( f ) the applicant ’s daughter ’s health had deteriorated during her transfer to the clinic in GPE because she was not assisted by a doctor throughout the transportation ; ( g ) any of the aspects above , or others , had any causal link with the death of the applicant ’s daughter and her new born granddaughter . If the expert report established a causal link between the death and the fact that the transfer by ambulance had not been done with a doctor present , the reason why the patient had not been accompanied by a doctor and the identity of those responsible should be established . Consequently , the medical staff responsible for the transfer by ambulance should be heard . The court also ordered that the notes on the clinical observation chart should be checked for accuracy against the doctor ’s statements regarding the consumption of forest mushrooms , and accordingly the victim ’s mother and husband should be heard .

ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment .

On DATE , ORG dismissed ORG appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of the district court .

By an order of DATE , ORG decided not to open criminal proceedings against Dr GPE , on the ground that his criminal liability had become time - barred .

The applicant challenged the order before the superior prosecutor . She argued amongst other things , that the investigating authorities had delayed the investigation of the case , although she had repeatedly asked for a speedy investigation . Also , she had not been notified without undue delay of the outcome of the criminal investigation , although on DATE ORG had informed her that she would be notified about the outcome of the investigation .

On DATE , the superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the applicant ’s challenge and upheld the order of DATE . It held amongst other things that the proceedings had not been abandoned by the authorities , since they had finished the investigation on CARDINAL DATE . The length of proceedings had been affected by the forensic expert reports , the last one being produced on DATE .

The applicant challenged the order before ORG .

On DATE , the ORG declined jurisdiction in the case in favour of ORG .

On DATE , the file was registered with ORG .

On DATE , ORG considered that only LOC was competent ratione loci to examine the case . Consequently , it referred the case to ORG to examine and decide on the conflict of competence between the CARDINAL district courts .

On DATE , ORG decided that ORG was competent to examine the case .

On DATE , the file was registered once again with ORG .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action as ill - founded and upheld the prosecutor ’s office ’s order . It held that according to the relevant criminal law provisions and given the nature of the offence he had been suspected of , Dr GPE ’s criminal liability had become time - barred DATE after the unfortunate event . The statute of limitations had not been suspended or interrupted by any act carried out in the case that had to be communicated to the accused ( ȋnvinuitului ) or to the defendant ( inculpatului ) . Criminal proceedings against PERSON had not been opened and therefore he had not been considered either an accused or a defendant , as the investigation against him had been carried out at the preliminary investigation ( acte premergătoare ) stage of the proceedings .

The court considered that the applicant ’s argument that an expert medical report could be requested only after a criminal investigation had been opened was not supported by any legal provision . Also , it could not be accepted that the running of the statutory limit had been stopped or suspended , either by the request for a medical expert report to be produced or by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The judgment of a court quashing an order of the prosecutor ’s office to discontinue a criminal investigation was not one of the lawfully permissible reasons to suspend the running of the statutory limit .

The court also held that ORG had been competent to investigate the case . The fact that ORG had transferred the case for examination to a different district court would not have justified an investigation of the case by a different prosecutor ’s office from the CARDINAL which had initially investigated the case , once the examining court had referred the case back to the prosecutor . Furthermore , the prosecutor was legally bound to open criminal proceedings only if , after the evidence indicated by the court was adduced to the file , it did not appear that there were circumstances that would impede it . Also , even if the prosecutor ’s office had taken into account the applicant ’s granddaughter ’s death and had requalified PERSON acts from involuntary manslaughter to aggravated involuntary manslaughter and the maximum penalty had been increased by DATE , the offence would still have been time - barred .

The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed as inadmissible the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , on the ground that the domestic legislation did not allow a second level of jurisdiction in respect of court proceedings initiated against the prosecutor ’s office ’s orders or decisions .

On DATE , following Dr GPE ’s request , ORG attached to ORG ( Comisia de Jursidicţie Profesională a PERSON Suceava ) established that there were no elements to suggest medical error or other deficiencies in the medical treatment and investigations provided to the applicant ’s daughter at ORG . Her illness had been identified promptly once she was hospitalised , and she had been transferred to intensive care and afterwards to Iaşi . However , the seriousness of her illness led to her death . In addition , there had been no other case before ORG in which PERSON had been accused of medical error or breaches of the code of medical ethics .

On CARDINAL DATE , ORG validated ORG decision .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

At the material time the applicant was a local correspondent for the national DATE newspaper GPE liberă . The applicant ’s articles covered various fields , including investigations into the activities of the armed forces and the police .

In DATE secret documents were leaked , accidentally or deliberately , from the NORP unit of an international military base in GPE . The leak consisted mostly of copies of documents produced by the NORP unit and classified as secret . The documents referred to the military operations of the NORP troops at the said base in DATE and DATE , such as operations orders or military maps . Copies of secret documents produced for the use of the NORP unit by a military unit belonging to another country were also leaked .

In DATE CARDINAL NORP journalists , including ORG , who was working for PERSON liberă , were kidnapped by a terrorist group in GPE . Their release in DATE was negotiated by ORG and an investigation was immediately started by the NORP authorities . The following year the media extensively reported on this case and the role played by the authorities .

On DATE O.O. , together with other journalists , participated in a television show on a national channel . They criticised the authorities’ negligence in allowing leaks of secret sensitive military information and mentioned the existence of a compact disc ( “ CD ” ) with secret documents belonging to a NORP military unit in GPE . When the host of the show questioned the authenticity of the information on the CD , ORG showed his computer to the camera . Some of the documents , including several military maps with the positions of the NORP troops , were thus made visible to the public .

The journalists speculated as to whether such information could have reached terrorists too and demanded an investigation in order to establish whether the leaks had been voluntary . ORG also said that although at that stage , the information no longer posed a threat to the lives of NORP soldiers , it could have more serious implications in connection with the conflict in GPE and GPE .

During the show it was mentioned that the newspapers PERSON liberă and PERSON had received the secret information in question but had decided not to publish it , fearing possible damage to national security .

On DATE the national DATE newspapers , GPE liberă and PERSON , published articles drawing attention to the fact that confidential information which could threaten national security had been leaked from a military unit under the authority of ORG .

On DATE O.O. participated in a radio show together with the chairman and vice - chairman of ORG of ORG , the director of PERSON and an investigative journalist from a national newspaper . The show followed a day of discussions and explanations about the leak of secret documents given by ORG , the Chief of ORG and the head of ORG before ORG of the ORG . When asked how they had obtained the documents in question , ORG refused to disclose his source , while the director of PERSON stated that he had received them anonymously . The chairman of ORG mentioned that the security of classified information had been one of the main chapters in GPE ’s negotiations for joining ORG . He emphasised the importance of ORG undertaking a thorough investigation in connection with the leak , which put into play GPE ’s credibility as a member of ORG .

On DATE the Minister of Defence held a press conference during which he announced that an internal inquiry into the leak of classified information had been finalised and that CARDINAL members of the army were being punished with disciplinary sanctions . Further investigations were being conducted by the prosecutors with respect to CARDINAL other members of the army . The minister also confirmed the fact that he had been informed about the leak by ORG ( ORG ) in DATE and that the specialised army departments had immediately started preliminary verifications .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG and ORG opened of its own motion an investigation on the basis of the articles published the same day in GPE liberă and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the same time , ORG informed the same prosecutor ’s office about the leak of information from within its structures .

Shortly afterwards the prosecutor decided to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL other people ( DATE a former member of the armed forces , DATE a journalist , ORG and GPE ) for disclosing classified information on national security under LAW , and for the gathering and sharing of secret or confidential information under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on national security .

Authorisations had been issued for the interception of telephone calls made from the phone numbers belonging to ORG , GPE and GPE , as well as for the surveillance of ORG and GPE and the ambient recording of their discussions . As a result , transcripts of discussions between the applicant and ORG and GPE had been included in the investigation file .

At TIME on DATE , after his house had been searched by the police and the hard drive of his computer seized , the applicant was taken into police custody .

On DATE the applicant ’s pre - trial detention was authorised by a judge for a period of DATE . An appeal lodged by the applicant against the measure was allowed and he was released on DATE .

NORP The prosecutor established that at DATE ORG , a journalist specialised in military issues , working for local newspapers in PERSON , had received on a CD a copy of the secret military documents leaked in DATE . At that time , CARDINAL people , including GPE , had been in possession of the above - mentioned documents . On DATE PERSON had met the applicant and had given him a copy of the CD .

A list of the applicant ’s telephone calls showed that on DATE he had called the head of the public relations department of ORG . In DATE , both the applicant and PERSON had discussed the content of the CD with other journalists and on several occasions with employees of ORG and of ORG .

The investigation further established that by DATE the applicant had shown the content of the CD to a few people and had given a copy of the CD to ORG and GPE , who the applicant believed were former members of the police . Furthermore , in DATE O.O. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) went to PERSON and met the applicant and PERSON , who showed him the documents .

NORP In a statement given before the prosecutor on DATE , the applicant said that he could not remember having discussed the secret documents with ORG He also said that as soon as he had found out about the information in question , he became interested in it as a journalist . Because there were doubts about the authenticity of the documents , he had had to contact a number of people in order to verify the information . It was in that context that he had discussed and shown the said documents to ORG and GPE , who had let him believe they had connections with high - ranking politicians . He acknowledged that he might have told some of his friends that he had seen secret documents in order to be given more credit as an investigative journalist .

On DATE the head of ORG informed the chief prosecutor of the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG and ORG that the documents which formed the object of the investigation and which had been issued by the NORP army , and had been compromised by their publication in the media , had been de - classified .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG and ORG decided that “ by receiving ( obtaining ) from ORG a CD that he [ had ] watched CARDINAL times ; by saving on the hard drive of his computer the information classified as ORG secret and work secret and by giving the CD to GPE and ORG , outside the legal framework set forth by the provisions of PERSON no . PERSON and ORG no . CARDINAL ” , the applicant had committed , in a continuous form , the crime proscribed by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The prosecutor decided , however , not to indict the applicant but to sanction him with an administrative fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant was further ordered to pay part of the judicial costs incurred in the investigation in the amount of ORG EUR CARDINAL ) . The prosecutor also ordered the confiscation of the hard drive seized from the applicant on DATE .

The prosecutor ’s decision was based on the NORP legal framework on classified information , which was held to include PERSON no . ORG on the protection of classified information , Government Decision no . CARDINAL approving national standards for the protection of classified information , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the protection of professional secrets and PERSON no . CARDINAL on national security . The decision further mentioned that the applicant had received the secret military information and had proceeded to verify its nature and importance . He had further shared the information with other people . From the elements in the file , the prosecutor concluded that the purpose of the applicant ’s actions was just to make himself more visible as an investigative journalist and not to serve the public interest . Noting that the protection of classified information was an obligation incumbent only on authorised personnel , the prosecutor nevertheless considered that information concerning national defence was classified and could not be of public interest , as provided for by LAW no . ORG on access to public information . As a result , although anyone unauthorised in the field of national defence – such as a journalist DATE was not bound by a duty to protect this type of information , he or she did not have the right to disclose it to the public .

In view of the above , the prosecutor considered that the applicant had acted with intent to disclose classified information outside the above - mentioned legal framework . However , the prosecutor considered that the crimes committed by the applicant and the other CARDINAL suspects were not serious enough to require the pursuit of the criminal investigation . In this connection , the prosecutor noted firstly that the information in dispute was not likely to endanger national security but only to harm the interests of ORG and its armed forces . In addition , the information was outdated and hence was no longer likely to endanger the NORP military structures in GPE . The information in question had already been “ compromised ” ( disclosed by a member of the armed forces to a civilian ) as early as DATE , with no measures having been taken by the institution concerned . The prosecutor also mentioned that the actions undertaken by O.S and the applicant in order to gather information concerning the content , nature and importance of the secret documents in question , by contacting active or reserve members of the armed forces or other journalists were part of the working methods of investigative journalists and did not necessarily present a danger for society .

The applicant complained against that decision to the superior prosecutor , who rejected the complaint as ill - founded on DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained against the ORG decisions before ORG . He submitted that he had been wrongfully found guilty of the crime proscribed by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In his opinion , that Article , as well as the entire law , imposed obligations only on people authorised to work with secret information . He contended that he had not made any steps to gather military secrets but had merely passively received information that was already in the public domain . Invoking LAW , the applicant submitted that the ORG had already decided that once information concerning national security had entered the public domain , it was difficult to justify the imposition of sanctions for its publication . He therefore urged the court to acknowledge that his actions could not be regarded as crimes .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint as ill - founded . The court held that the facts established during the investigation had led to the conclusion that the applicant had secretly transmitted the CD containing secret information to other people he knew , avoiding handing it over to the competent authorities of ORG or ORG . The court further held :

“ The accused ’s capacity as a journalist can not exonerate him from the commission of this crime because anyone who finds out about secret military information does not have the right to publish it since this might endanger the lives of soldiers , officers in the conflict environment . But the applicant , by the means described above , covertly shared the secret information , which could have reached people interested in putting military structures in danger .

The accused did not even wish to use his profession in order to bring to the public ’s knowledge the leak of information , as he failed to ask the newspaper for which he worked to make public the breach of state secrets in the military ( obviously the military secret information could not have been published ) .

The freedom of the press invoked by the accused can not give a journalist the right to make public , to unofficial people , secret military information , because this may endanger the right to safety of certain military structures . ”

The applicant was ordered to pay court fees in the amount of ROL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .

The applicant appealed against that judgment . He alleged that the information in dispute had already been in the public domain at the time it had been brought to his attention . He submitted that the prosecutor ’s decision had breached his freedom of expression in an attempt to cover up an embarrassing situation for the authorities , who had allowed the information to be leaked to the public .

On DATE the High Court of Cassation and ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint with final effect . The court held that LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL applied to anyone who gathered and shared secret information outside the legal framework . It further held that the applicant had not contested the fact that he had come into possession of secret information which he had then shared with other people outside the legal framework . Moreover , he had done this with direct intent . Considering that the information in question had not been in the public domain , the court held that journalists coming into possession of such information must submit it to the competent authorities and were allowed by law to share with the public only the failure of the institution concerned to protect its confidentiality . Having failed to act in that way , the applicant had committed the crime proscribed by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The court concluded that the prosecutor had correctly considered that the crime had not , however , attained the degree of seriousness to require criminal sanctions .

The applicant was ordered to pay court fees of ORG ( EUR CARDINAL ) .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was working as a cleaning lady when she allegedly developed serious medical complications in her left wrist , which could only partly have been addressed by surgery . This resulted in her using predominantly her right arm , which in turn resulted in the overburdening of that arm , giving rise to a number of medical problems . Because of these medical issues she was found , in DATE , to be incapable of further work and officially recognised as having a partial disability .

On DATE the applicant applied to the Pensions and ORG of GPE ( “ the Institute ” ) for a disability allowance in respect of a physical impairment ( nadomestilo za invalidnost DATE hereinafter “ disability allowance ” ) .

On DATE the first - instance disability commission of the ORG , located in GPE , issued a report to the effect that the applicant was not suffering from any physical impairment stipulated in ORG on the List of Physical Impairments ( Samoupravni sporazum o seznamu telesnih okvar – hereinafter “ the List ” ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The commission – composed of an occupational medicine specialist , an orthopaedic specialist and a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician – based its opinion on an examination of the medical records submitted by the applicant and a clinical examination of the applicant .

On DATE the Nova Gorica unit of the ORG , relying on the opinion of the first - instance disability commission , dismissed the applicant ’s application for a disability allowance . A copy of the first - instance disability commission ’s opinion was attached to the decision . The applicant appealed .

On CARDINAL DATE the second - instance disability commission of the ORG , located in GPE , composed of an occupational medicine specialist and an orthopaedic specialist , examined the applicant ’s medical file and again issued a report to the effect that no physical impairment stipulated in the List could be found .

On DATE ORG , referring to the conclusions of the second - instance disability commission , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . A copy of the second - instance disability commission ’s opinion was attached to the decision .

On DATE the applicant initiated court proceedings against ORG seeking the annulment of the above - mentioned decisions taken by ORG , arguing that the facts had been wrongly established , and that the procedure had not been properly conducted . She argued that because of the incapacity of her arms the functioning of her body was inhibited and greater efforts were required to satisfy her DATE needs . She also argued that the opposing party should have more seriously examined all her medical problems . In her view her physical impairment amounted to PERCENT incapacity ; however , the exact degree could only be determined by a medical expert . She accordingly proposed that a medical expert be appointed .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a single - judge formation , dismissed the applicant ’s application for a disability allowance . It observed that its role was to check whether the impugned administrative decisions had been issued in a procedure that had complied with the procedural rules , and had been based on a proper establishment of fact and proper application of the law . It furthermore observed that the claimed physical impairment was a legally relevant fact , whose degree of severity under the relevant legal provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had to be proved in order for entitlement to a disability allowance to be established . After taking into account the documents in the file and the hearing of the applicant , the court found that the ORG had correctly established the facts . Referring to the findings of the disability commissions and its own direct observation of the applicant at the hearing , it concluded that the impairment to the applicant ’s health did not amount to a physical impairment within the meaning of the law .

Considering the above - mentioned findings sufficient to reach its conclusion , the court refused the applicant ’s request for the appointment of a medical expert as unnecessary .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance court ’s finding . She argued that the impairment to both of her arms , her psychological illness and her headaches meant that the normal functioning of her organism was inhibited and that she had to exert greater efforts in order to perform DATE tasks ; that the List , which was out of date , could not possibly contain a complete list of all illnesses and injuries ; that the first - instance court should not have relied on the opinions of the disability commissions and a doctor ( opinions which the applicant had disputed ) ; that the first - instance court should have appointed a medical expert , as requested by the applicant ; that the applicant could not have explained all her medical issues at the hearing and that the court had not been in a position to assess the flexibility of her arms .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , finding that the facts had been sufficiently established and the substantive law applied correctly . It also found that the refusal of the applicant ’s request for the appointment of an expert had not undermined the legality of the decision as that decision would not have been any different had an expert been appointed . ORG further found the following :

“ A court in a judicial social dispute ... assesses the correctness and lawfulness of the impugned administrative decisions [ in question ] and having regard to the dispute of the full jurisdiction [ the court ] when quashing [ the administrative decisions ] alone decides on the merits . Within the context of the judicial review of the administrative decisions [ the court ] is of course not obliged to accept evidence [ submitted by ] a forensic medical expert if the expert opinions of the disability commissions at first and second instance allow for the conclusion that the negative administrative decisions are correct and lawful because they are based on an assessment by both commissions which is convincing in view of the available medical documentation and the report of [ the relevant ] medical examination . Such a procedural situation is found in the present case , because in the opinion of the appeal court the expert bodies in the pre - judicial administrative proceedings correctly determined that the applicant had no physical impairment . ”

The court furthermore found that physical impairments could not be determined contrary to what was provided in the List . Moreover , the question of whether a particular condition amounted to an impairment was different to the question of whether it amounted to a disability . In the applicant ’s case , although she had a recognised disability , this fact alone – without any functional problems in respect of inflexibility of joints – could not suffice to categorise her condition as CARDINAL of physical impairment . ORG agreed with the court of first instance that the disability commissions in the pre - judicial administrative proceedings had made the right assessment when concluding that the applicant had not suffered from any physical impairment . It also pointed out that the court had not been obliged to appoint an independent expert if it had been possible to conclude from the disability ORG opinions that the ORG ’s decisions had been well - founded , as had been so in the instant case .

The applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal on points of law . She argued that her right to a fair trial had not been respected because the court had refused to appoint a medical expert and had assessed the applicant ’s condition itself , despite lacking the necessary medical knowledge . She had thereby been deprived of her only possibility to challenge the ORG ’s decisions . The applicant also drew attention to the fact that in numerous cases court - appointed experts had found the disability ORG fact - finding to be erroneous . She moreover argued that the first - instance court should not have based its decision on the List .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application , holding that there were no grounds for allowing an appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . She complained that ORG decision had not been reasoned . She further argued that she could not have explained all her medical issues at the hearing and that the court had not been in a position to assess the flexibility of her arms . Her only way of effectively challenging the ORG ’s decision would have been by way of appointing an independent medical expert ; as had been proved in the past , independent medical experts had often reached findings contrary to those of disability commissions . She invoked LAW ( equal protection of rights ) and LAW the right to judicial protection ) of the LAW . She also reiterated her complaint about the reliance on the List .

On DATE ORG decided to not accept the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for consideration , finding that it did not concern an important constitutional question or entail a violation of human rights which would have serious consequences for the applicant .


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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgieva;Khanlar Hajiyev;Pavlina Panova;Yonko Grozev

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

On DATE the applicants , at the time a married couple , bought a plot of land of QUANTITY in the village of GPE , on LOC coast . The seller , Mr O. , had acquired the property in DATE from the agricultural co - operative that existed at the time , in exchange for another plot of land of his .

NORP The applicants’ possession of the land remained undisturbed until DATE , when other persons took possession of it . The applicants discovered then that the land had been collectivised after DATE and that in DATE the heirs of the pre - collectivisation owner , PERSON , had instituted restitution proceedings under the relevant provisions of LAW ( “ the ORG ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Their restitution request had been allowed in a court judgment of DATE and in a decision issued by the competent administrative body ‒ the local agricultural land commission ‒ on DATE . Thereafter , the heirs of PERSON had transferred the land to the persons who had later taken possession of the plot .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants brought a rei vindicatio action against these individuals .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed their claim . It relied on the provision of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , holding on its basis that of the CARDINAL rival claims to the same land the law gave priority to the CARDINAL based on restitution .

Upon appeal , on DATE ORG reversed that decision and allowed the applicants’ action . It considered in particular that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG was not applicable to the case as it had only been introduced in DATE , that is to say after the restitution decision in favour of PERSON heirs and after the applicants had bought the plot of land .

Upon further appeal , in a final judgment of DATE , ORG quashed ORG judgment and dismissed the applicants’ rei vindicatio claim . It took the view that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG , introduced in DATE , had to be considered to be applicable with effect from the ORG ’s entry into force in DATE because it was merely clarifying its general restitution provisions . As to the exception contained in section CARDINAL ) of the Regulations for the ORG ’s implementation , also introduced in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG considered it inapplicable to the case ; in its view , section CARDINAL ) only precluded the restitution of properties which had been the subject of transactions prior to the ORG ’s entry into force in DATE , whereas the applicants had bought their plot in DATE .


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

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

The applicants jointly owned a flat which measured QUANTITY m. and was situated at CARDINAL FAC , GPE .

On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of LOC of GPE to be taken for ORG needs for town - planning purposes , having a total area of CARDINAL sq . m. Byuzand Street was listed as CARDINAL of the streets falling within such expropriation zones . A special body , ORG ( hereafter , the Agency ) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects .

On DATE the applicants’ flat was valued upon the request of the ORG by a valuation organisation . The market value of the flat was found to be MONEY ( ORG ) .

By a letter of DATE the ORG informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at CARDINAL by an independent licensed organisation . An additional sum of ORG was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within DATE .

The applicants did not accept the offer , not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered .

On an unspecified date the ORG lodged a claim against the applicants , seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their flat for ORG needs and to have them evicted .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the ORG ’s claim , ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG granted the ORG ’s claim upon appeal .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law , in which they argued , inter alia , that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by LAW .

On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicants’ appeal .

On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Split .

On DATE the applicant ’s father was hit by a car while attempting to cross a motorway . He suffered serious bodily injury and died at the scene .

On DATE ORG FAC uprava MONEY ) interviewed CARDINAL witnesses and the driver of the car , GPE The police also carried out the necessary tests to measure GPE ’s alcohol level , which showed that he had been intoxicated at the time of the accident .

NORP The police informed an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON ) of the accident . DATE the investigating judge , assisted by a road traffic expert , carried out an on - site inspection .

On DATE the road traffic expert submitted his report to the investigating judge , finding that in crossing the motorway the applicant ’s father had caught the driver of the car by surprise , which had caused the accident .

On DATE the investigating judge obtained a medical report concerning the applicant ’s father , indicating that he had been intoxicated at the time of the accident .

Meanwhile , the case file was forwarded to the Split Municipal State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u PERSON – “ the ORG Attorney ’s Office ” ) for its assessment of the relevant facts .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG obtained a medical report confirming that the driver of the car Z.K. had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG asked the investigating judge of ORG to open an investigation in respect of GPE on suspicion of causing a road accident resulting in death .

NORP Before deciding on that request , the investigating judge questioned GPE on DATE . He denied the charges , arguing that when the applicant ’s father had crossed the motorway he had been caught by surprise , and had had no way of avoiding the accident .

On DATE the investigating judge declined to open the investigation on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed . This was upheld by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE .

The case file was then returned to ORG , which was informed of its right to appeal against the decision of ORG . There is no evidence before the ORG that the applicant was informed of this decision .

The State Attorney ’s ORG decided not to appeal . There is no evidence before the ORG that the applicant was informed of this decision .

On DATE the applicant inquired with ORG about the progress of the case . He indicated that the last information he had received had been the on - site inspection report . He explained that he had been away for a while , so if any new documents had been forwarded to him it was possible that he had not received them .

On DATE the investigating judge of ORG informed the applicant that the investigation into the circumstances of his father ’s death had been discontinued .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) against ORG decision refusing to open the investigation into the accident .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal and ordered the investigation . ORG held that ORG conclusion had been premature , since several crucial facts concerning the accident had remained unanswered . It therefore instructed the investigating judge to question witnesses and to take whatever further investigative measures which were necessary , such as a reconstruction of events .

On DATE the investigating judge questioned CARDINAL witnesses and concluded the investigation . He also informed the applicant that he could , if he considered it appropriate , indict GPE in the criminal courts on charges of causing a road accident .

On DATE the applicant , acting as a subsidiary prosecutor and through his lawyer , lodged a request to prosecute with ORG ( PERSON ) against GPE , on charges of causing a road accident resulting in the death of his father , punishable under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The first hearing scheduled for DATE before a single judge of ORG was adjourned because the parties failed to appear , as they had not been properly summoned . The trial judge indicated that he would issue another written order for the next hearing .

Having received no subsequent summonses , on DATE , the applicant urged ORG to schedule a hearing , arguing that he had attempted to contact the court several times to ask it to expedite the proceedings .

At a hearing held on DATE Z.K. pleaded not guilty and the hearing was adjourned . CARDINAL witnesses appeared at the hearing but were not questioned .

A further hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the investigating judge had failed to forward its case file to ORG .

At a hearing on DATE the single judge of ORG questioned GPE again , who reiterated his not guilty plea . The judge also questioned the applicant and the CARDINAL witnesses .

Another hearing was held on DATE , at which the trial judge questioned GPE and the expert witness .

On DATE ORG acquitted GPE on charges of causing the road accident .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , which on CARDINAL DATE quashed the first - instance judgment because of the procedural errors in the composition of the trial court . The relevant part of the judgment reads :

“ ... the first instance court did not sit in a proper formation because the trial was held before a single judge instead before a panel composed of a judge and CARDINAL lay judges . The offence under LAW and QUANTITY of LAW is punishable by imprisonment DATE , and under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW for the offences punishable by imprisonment of DATE , ORG must sit in panels composed of a judge and CARDINAL lay judges . ...

It should be also noted that for the offence under LAW and QUANTITY of LAW , that is in issue in the present case , because of the prescribed penalty , the trial should be held according to the rules of ordinary , and not summary , procedure , and that such [ ordinary criminal ] proceedings can be held only on an indictment , against which the accused has the right to lodge an objection , and not based on a request to prosecute . ”

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG asked the applicant to specify whether he had submitted an indictment ( optužnica ) or a request to prosecute ( optužni prijedlog ) . The relevant part of the letter reads :

“ In accordance with LAW the submission named [ request to prosecute ] is being returned to the [ subsidiary ] prosecutor for amendment in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . That is to say , the subsidiary prosecutor must indicate whether or not his submission is actually an indictment . ”

The applicant replied on DATE indicating that his submission was an indictment rather than a request to prosecute .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant ’s indictment had not been drafted properly , as it did not contain the statement of reasons on which it was based . The relevant part of this decision reads :

“ The subsidiary prosecutor on DATE submitted a request to prosecute against the accused GPE ....

Under LAW such submission , titled request to prosecute , was returned to the [ subsidiary ] prosecutor for amendment under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

The representative of the subsidiary prosecutor submitted before this court his amendment of the [ above - noted document ] indicating that the title “ request to prosecute ” should be changed to “ indictment ” , and that he had no other amendments .

Since the [ subsidiary ] prosecutor failed to comply with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ’s defence and the prosecutor ’s position on the defendant ’s defence ) , this court decided [ to discontinue the proceedings ] . ”

The applicant lodged an appeal on DATE with ORG , contending that he had only been invited to indicate whether he had instituted the proceedings by a request to prosecute or an indictment and that he had replied to that question accordingly . He also pointed out that the courts had accepted his indictment in DATE , conducted the proceedings and decided the case on the merits . Together with the appeal , the applicant submitted an amended indictment containing the statement of reasons .

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

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay GPE ’s legal costs and expenses in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

Also on DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) regarding the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms had been implemented in his case .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the decisions of the lower courts did not concern the applicant ’s civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him .


CASE OF RASTORGUYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

On DATE the GPE authorities , ORG and a private construction company signed an investment contract for the construction of a number of residential buildings in GPE . Pursuant to the contract , a title to CARDINAL flats was to be transferred to ORG . The rest of the flats were to remain the city ’s property .

In DATE the city authorities commissioned , as part of the said investment contract , several residential buildings . It appears that a number of flats in those buildings were transferred to ORG .

NORP In DATE the city authorities had their title to a number of flats , including those in residential buildings nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL at LOC , GPE , registered by the state authorities .

In DATE ORG assigned CARDINAL of those flats to private individuals and entered into social housing agreements with them . Subsequently those people successfully applied to ORG of GPE seeking recognition of their title to the flats by way of privatisation . Once the court ’s judgments became final , they had their ownership in respect of the flats registered in the state register and then sold the flats to other persons , including the applicants . The relevant transactions and transfer of the title to the property were duly registered by the authorities . The applicants moved into the flats and resided there .

According to the Government , in DATE and DATE the police opened criminal investigation in respect of the fraudulent transactions with the flats . The Government did not inform of its outcome .

On an unspecified date city authorities asked ORG to reopen the cases concerning the flats privatised by the tenants who sold them to the applicants in DATE . The authorities claimed that the flats owned by the applicants were the city ’s property . ORG granted the request , quashed the earlier judgments allowing the privatisation of the flats and re - examined the cases . The court established , inter alia , that ORG had never owned the flats and , accordingly , had not had a right to assign them to private individuals . It granted the city ’s claims in full invalidating the decisions of ORG in respect of the flats and ordering the applicants’ eviction . The court also found that the applicants had acquired the flats in good faith . However , it ruled that the cases fell under one of the CARDINAL exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’s title , which required that precedence be given to GPE given that the flats had left the GPE ’s possession against the latter ’s will .

NORP The applicants’ appeals were to no avail . ORG and ORG of GPE rejected them as unsubstantiated .

According to the Government , the judgments ordering the applicants’ eviction were not enforced . The applicants continue to reside in the flats .

The details pertaining to each case are summed up in Appendix II below .