Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Effective domestic remedy;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-2 - Interference;In accordance with the law;Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Prescribed by law;Interference;Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Interference;Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo

On DATE of the applicants , PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) and PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) , purchased a plot of land measuring QUANTITY from several individuals whose property was recognised and returned in DATE by a decision of ORG . The land is situated on the coastline of the city of PERSON in the so - called area of GPE i ORG .

On an unspecified date the first and second applicants entered into an agreement with a company for the construction of a QUANTITY residential and service building , with a penthouse floor and an underground floor containing shops ( hereinafter “ the FAC ” or “ the building ” ) on the above - mentioned plot of land .

On DATE ORG ( ORG – “ the CTP ” ) issued a building permit to the company and the first and second applicants . The remaining applicants entered into purchase agreements in respect of the flats to be constructed on the plot of land . The first and second applicants , by virtue of their ownership of the plot of land , were to be owners of some of the flats and shops in FAC . On DATE the building was registered with ORG ( “ the IPRO ” ) .

Upon completion of the construction works in DATE , it appears that the majority of the flats and shops were furnished , the owners moved into their respective flats , and a pool bar / pizzeria was opened . The adjacent stretch of beach was opened for public use .

It appears from a letter from the ORG dated CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) that on DATE ORG ( PERSON dhe Urbanistik DATE “ the ORG ” ) requested support from the LOC district police for the demolition of illegal constructions along the LOC coastline , to be carried out DATE . Further demolition work was to continue DATE on other parts of the Vlora coastline .

On DATE , without prior notice , officials of the ORG and ORG ( PERSON Urbanistik Vlorë – “ the FAC ) , supported by ORG , surrounded ORG and cordoned it off with yellow police tape marked “ Crime scene – no entry ” ( GPE krimi , nuk lejohet kalimi ) . According to the evidence submitted by the applicants , which were widely published in the media , the residents of the building were told that the authorities were seizing the building . They were prevented from entering their flats and retrieving their valuables . The applicants only learned of the situation through the media or by telephone from the building ’s security guards . They were told that the authorities were examining the legality of the building permit and other relevant documents . It appears from the documents submitted that the building was guarded by armed police officers , who were positioned in such a way as to prevent the residents of the building ( including some of the applicants ) from entering . Furthermore , when one of the residents asked CARDINAL of the ORG employees to provide identification or another official document to justify the authorities’ interference with their property rights , the ORG employee declared that they were not obliged to give any information because they were an official body .

On an unspecified date the ORG prepared an information report concerning the inspection they had carried out at ORG on DATE . According to the report , neither had the members of the ORG , the employees of ORG nor the inspectors of the ORG had at no stage carried out the necessary building and planning inspections of the site . With their continuous actions and omissions they had allowed irregularities and unlawfulness throughout the whole period from the very moment the relevant permits had been approved in clear breach of the law , as well as throughout the construction and project implementation process .

On DATE , according to the evidence submitted by the applicants , the then Deputy Minister of Transport and Infrastructure , in an television interview for national TV Top Channel given in relation to ORG , stated :

“ ... The ORG is entitled to have the land back in its previous state . The demolition of the building is an indisputable consequence . The land should be cleared . If this means that the building should be demolished , then demolition should take place . The demolition is not a purpose per se . It is the result of a series of unlawful acts , a series of flagrant violations of NORP law ... ORG has been involved in this illegality ( futet në këtë valle të paligjshmërisë ) ; then there is ORG , which – in contravention of the urban plan and in respect of land which does not exist DATE issued a building permit . ORG has registered a building that has DATE nil – value ( ndërtim me vlerë CARDINAL , nul ) . There is a CARDINAL,CARDINAL-square - metre construction on a plot of land that only measures QUANTITY ... it ’s like a stage set for a show put on by corrupt authorities . We have reached this point in flagrant violation of the law ... Everyone could have been a victim as a result of this series of illegalities . Those that have bought flats in this building are victims . These people can not be treated the same as those who have flagrantly violated the law . The Government should approve a fund for the full compensation of the people who have bought flats in this building ... ”

On DATE , according to the evidence submitted by the applicants , the Prime Minister publicly declared that the Government intended to realise a project for the construction of PERSON , a seaside promenade in LOC , with a view to completion by DATE . He also declared that the Government would put out a tender for the design of the project .

The Jon Residence was demolished with explosives DATE and DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL residents , including CARDINAL of the applicants ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . PERSON and PERSON ) lodged a claim with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) against the ORG and ORG , requesting an “ acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of the administrative actions carried out on DATE , which had resulted in a violation of their property rights , and the obligation of administrative authorities , the ORG and ORG to refrain from taking any further administrative action , necessary for the protection of the applicants’ property rights ” ( konstatimi i paligjshmërisë së veprimit administrativ të kryer nga pala e paditur i datës QUANTITY PERSON , që kanë sjellë cënimin e të drejtave të pronësisë së paditësave ; detyrimi i organit administrativ INUK dhe ORG për të ndaluar kryerjen e një veprimi tjetër administrativ , të nevojshëm për mbrojtjen e të drejtave të paditësave ) .

It appears from ORG decision dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that during the proceedings the applicants argued that the actions taken by the ORG and ORG had been arbitrary because the construction had been lawful and in accordance with urban planning regulations . They claimed that police officers and representatives of the ORG and ORG had refused to allow them to enter the building by surrounding the building with crime scene tape . The cordoning off of the building had been done with a view to its demolition because the authorities had already proceeded in the same manner with other buildings , a fact which made it ever more apparent that there was a risk of adverse consequences for the applicants . The actions taken , namely the surrounding of the building with a view to its demolition without conducting a detailed analysis of whether the documentation was unlawful , and without the situation being examined by a court , had resulted in an extreme interference with the applicants’ property rights .

During those proceedings the applicants further requested ORG to issue an interim order for the necessary measures to stay the implementation of the above - mentioned administrative action and for the removal of the obstacles which had made the seizure of the building possible and had made it impossible for them to use their properties , as well as a stay of all administrative decisions already issued or which were in the process of being issued related to the demolition of a lawful construction .

On DATE ORG , under Articles CARDINAL et seq . of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) and LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) , in its operative provisions ordered : “ the issuance of an interim order staying the administrative actions of any public authority that can interfere with the peaceful enjoyment by the applicants of their respective properties ... the interim order is to remain in place until a decision is given on the merits , provided that the applicants themselves institute proceedings on the merits within DATE of the interim order to challenge the administrative actions or any administrative decision that will be adopted in respect of their properties ” . The decision , in so far as relevant , is reasoned as follows :

“ ... it is proved that the applicants – owners of the flats in the Jon Residence have not been allowed to enter their respective properties , thus impeding them in the exercise of their property rights to a property which they have acquired legally in accordance with domestic law ... the court considers that the request for the interim order should be accepted because the applicants submitted evidence which proves ... that in the event that a civil claim on the merits is allowed , the execution of that decision would be difficult or impossible , thus creating a situation where the legal interest or subjective right recognised by a final judicial decision remains ineffective ... in the present case the interim order requested by the applicants represents their right to access the court with the purpose of prohibiting any further action by the administrative authority ... in this way protecting their fundamental constitutional and legal rights until the examination of the merits of their claims ... the court considers that the ORG and ORG have not documented their administrative decision in the form required by law ... under administrative law this [ undocumented administrative action ] is also considered an administrative decision ... this does not affect the actual consequences of the execution of the decision , consequences which may bring about irreparable damage to the legal interest and subjective rights of the applicants ... ORG considers that it is the duty of the administrative authority to issue an administrative decision in the written form required by law , in this way there is compliance with the principle of good governance of the public administration authorities as well as effective compliance with the rights of the party against which the administrative decision has been issued , so that that party is able to institute judicial proceedings and always in respect of the principle of the right to a fair trial ... the principle of proportionality during the administrative procedure followed by the authorities in the present case is similar to the constitutional principles of proportionality examined above , which essentially aim to strike a balance between the purpose to be achieved through the administrative act and the means to be used , without disregarding fundamental freedoms and rights and the achievement of legal public interests ... ”

On an unspecified date the ORG representative submitted a request to the ORG , informing it of the interim order of CARDINAL DATE . He stressed the fact that under LAW of the ORG an interim order was an executable decision , even in the event of an appeal against it . He urged the authorities to take the necessary measures for the immediate enforcement of the interim order . It appears that no reply was given .

On DATE the ORG lodged an appeal against the interim order of DATE .

On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings concerning the interim measure on the grounds that the subject matter of the proceedings had ceased to exist , as ORG had already been demolished in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The decision , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ ... it was already ... a well - known public fact that ORG had been demolished , in relation to which ORG had decided to stay the administrative actions of any ORG authority with the aim of the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the applicants until the final solution of the dispute ... The outcome which the interim order was trying to stay , has now occurred ... ”

It appears that on an unspecified date one of the applicants complained to the Ombudsman ( ORG ) about the authorities’ interference with her entering her flat and other residents entering their flats ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She complained that the authorities had arbitrarily cordoned off the building using yellow police “ crime scene ” tape .

On DATE , in reply to the applicant ’s complaints and to other ORG complaints appearing in the media , the ORG sent an official letter to the chief of LOC police station ( GPE i PERSON ) , the head of LOC district police ( LOC ) , and for information to the Director General of ORG ) , recommending that they take all appropriate measures to stop the unlawful actions that had resulted in a violation of the Jon Residence residents’ property rights . The ORG stated that the ORG had seized the building without any formal act . The cordoning off of the building preventing the applicants from enjoying their properties was unlawful and had consequently resulted in a violation of their legal interests . Moreover , the use of yellow police “ crime scene ” tape was not appropriate since the events in the present case did not involve a crime scene . He further suggested that it was necessary to examine the case and undertake organisational measures aimed at ensuring that such actions were not repeated in the future .

On an unspecified date , but within DATE from the interim order , CARDINAL residents , including CARDINAL of the applicants ( PERSON , A. ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . PERSON and PERSON ) , lodged a claim on the merits with ORG . It appears from ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that the object of the claim was the same as that lodged on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG declared that the actions carried out by the ORG and ORG on DATE had been arbitrary and in flagrant breach of LAW and the law . The decision in so far as relevant reads as follows :

“ ... [ the ] ORG and [ the ] ORG abusively and without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions took arbitrary action with the aim of demolishing a property which had been acquired in accordance with the law . The ORG had no legal reason to take this administrative action , and therefore its actions were totally illegal ... the administrative action for the demolition of the construction as duly authorised by the competent authorities without first analysing in detail the illegality of the actions and without an assessment of the situation by an independent court of law , was within the limits of extreme illegality ... The authorities unilaterally and without a full and comprehensive administrative investigation surrounded the building ... The authorities with their arbitrary actions gravely violated the principle of legal certainty , according to which no one should suffer an interference with their rights obtained by law and has the expectation that no ORG authority will take any administrative decision or action by which the rights obtained by law could later be violated as a consequence of the State authorities’ actions ... ”

ORG accordingly allowed the claim . The applicants , however , withdrew their request for the authorities to be prohibited from taking any further action , which had become devoid of purpose , since ORG had in the meantime been demolished by the authorities . ORG therefore discontinued the examination of this part of the claim .

On DATE , following an appeal by the authorities , ORG upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears from the decision that the applicants argued that the ORG and ORG had abusively and without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions taken arbitrary action with a view to demolishing a lawful property . ORG reasoned that the cordoning off of the building and prevention of the applicants from entering it had been arbitrary , not in accordance with the law and in breach of their property rights . It further noted that the ORG were obliged to compensate the applicants for their illegal actions under LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) and LAW . Only after the actions taken by the authorities were declared unlawful were the applicants entitled to bring a claim for damages under LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . However , it did not decide this issue as it had not been part of the claim . It appears that the proceedings are pending before ORG .

On DATE ORG ( ORG për GPE “ LOC ) adopted a decision on emergency measures to be undertaken for the protection and rehabilitation of the environment in some areas of national importance , as well as a procedure for the preparation of an integrated sectoral plan concerning stretches of coastline . The decision stated that stretches of coastline were areas of national importance where measures of an emergency nature were to be undertaken with a view to protecting and rehabilitating the territory and environment . Furthermore , it was decided that the granting of new development building permits for individual buildings on stretches of coastline and in other areas of national importance would be suspended pending the preparation of the integrated sectoral plan .

On DATE ORG issued a decision , which came into effect immediately , ordering the expropriation in the public interest of immovable private properties affected by the environmental rehabilitation of Uji i Ftohtë – Tuneli , a protected stretch of coastline in GPE . The expropriation was made in favour of GPE within DATE of the decision . The total compensation awarded was MONEY NORP PERSON ( ALL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of the construction measuring CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL square metres in total , to be divided among the owners . The decision was taken under LAW and on the basis of CARDINAL decisions of the NCTP – the above - mentioned decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and an earlier decision of DATE on the approval of the LOC city centre plan . According to the decision , after the expropriation the legal owners of the property would be compensated ( by the authorities ) on presentation of their property title documents . The deadline for the termination of the expropriation procedure was set for CARDINAL DATE .

The decision was published in ORG on DATE . It appears that the applicants only learned of the decision DATE , when the press spokesman for the Minister of ORG announced that ORG was to be demolished DATE a process that was to start DATE ( DATE ) .

On DATE the mayor of PERSON requested the assistance of the ORG with the demolition of ORG in accordance with the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the ORG requested the assistance of LOC police station with the demolition , which was planned to start at TIME . The entire building was demolished DATE and DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the IPRO , in response to a letter sent by CARDINAL of the applicants asking for a copy of her certificate of ownership , said that since the building had been demolished , it was unable to issue a certificate of ownership in respect of a property that no longer existed .

On DATE ORG issued another decision , “ On some amendments to the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ” , amending its previous decision of CARDINAL DATE to the effect that it awarded the applicants a total of ALL CARDINAL in compensation in respect of a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . The deadline for the termination of the expropriation procedure was set for DATE . No appeal was lodged against this decision .

On DATE ORG of ORG addressed a letter to ORG , stating that ORG had approved a fund of ALL CARDINAL and ALL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in total ) for the implementation of the Council of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . No payment has been made to the applicants .

On DATE CARDINAL residents , including all the applicants , lodged a claim with ORG against the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , challenging the value of the compensation awarded and the calculation of the exact surface area of the property which had been expropriated , on the basis that the decision had been issued as a result of an expropriation procedure in flagrant breach of the law . They also requested that ORG be ordered to change the amount of compensation ( to CARDINAL per square CARDINAL ) and compensate each owner based upon the exact size of their property , corresponding to an amount of fair compensation in accordance with the law and calculated by an expert appointed by the court , also taking into consideration the possibility of development of the property . In their claim the applicants maintained that the expropriation had been unlawful and that a “ de facto expropriation ” ( shpronësim de facto ) had taken place . They also maintained that the actions of CARDINAL DATE of the ORG and ORG had been abusive and had been taken without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions with the aim of demolishing a lawful property . They further submitted that , even though the authorities had issued an interim order and the ORG had also acknowledged the illegality of the authorities’ actions and had recommended that similar actions in the future should not be repeated without awaiting a decision of ORG , they had nevertheless adopted the ORG of ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicants’ claim . It reasoned that the expropriation had been unlawful in that the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE had been adopted in gross procedural violations and breaches of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) and various by - laws .

As regards the facts of the case , ORG mentioned that the actions taken on DATE consisting of the cordoning off of the building with a view to its demolition had been arbitrary and taken in breach of domestic law , as it had held in its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also reiterated the fact that the Ombudsman had recommended that necessary measures be taken so that similar arbitrary actions would not be repeated in the future . It nevertheless noted that the authorities had adopted the Council of ORG decision of DATE without awaiting the decision on the merits of the case .

As regards the legal arguments as to whether the interference had been lawful , ORG reasoned that the authorities had not complied with the whole expropriation procedure as set out in DATE CARDINAL of LAW . The competent ministry had not informed the owners of the property or the construction company of the expropriation , therefore they and CARDINAL parties had been deprived of the opportunity to challenge it . According to their claims submitted before the district court , the applicants had only learned of the expropriation decision through the media , while the building was being demolished . Even afterwards , the applicants had never been informed , despite it being a legal requirement . This would have given them reasonable time to leave the building and take their belongings to other places . The authorities had continued with the demolition of the property without having all the information as to who the residents were . From the documents in the case file it was evident that the relevant ministry had only asked GPE for information about the residents of ORG DATE after the building had been demolished and CARDINAL days after the decision on the expropriation had been issued . It further held that the expropriation had been disguised as a formal expropriation taken in compliance with the legal provisions in force , but that in reality the seriousness of the violations had been such as to make it a “ de facto expropriation ” ( shpronësim de facto ) . The ORG of ORG decision to expropriate the property had been a formal act , the sole purpose of which had been to disguise the actual nature of the expropriation . Furthermore , as a result of the immediate demolition of the building , without the authorities respecting the deadlines set in the law , the applicants had been prevented from being returned to their previous situation , even though the ORG of ORG decision had been null and void . ORG reasoned that the non - compliance with domestic law concerning the expropriation procedure had aggravated the applicants’ situation and , therefore , the violation of the property rights had been so serious that it was unacceptable in a ORG governed by the rule of law . It reasoned that , according to the ORG ’s case - law ( reference was made to PERSON v. GPE judgment ( just satisfaction ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) , in cases of unlawful expropriation the domestic courts had a strict obligation to award higher compensation than in cases of lawful expropriation . Moreover , as regards the existence of any legitimate aim in the public interest , ORG noted that there had been no infrastructure or ecological ( environmental ) regulatory plan approved by law , not even a plan for the development of the protected area . ORG noted that the decisions of the ORG of DATE and DATE had not provided for the demolition of any legal building or its expropriation , or the invalidity of any authorisation that had already been granted and of any construction already built . On the basis of the above considerations , ORG decided to amend the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the exact total surface area of the expropriated property , as well as the total amount of compensation and the amounts to be paid to each applicant . More concretely , ORG increased the total compensation to be awarded to the applicants to ALL CARDINAL , on the basis of a court - ordered experts’ report . ORG found that the authorities had blatantly violated the procedure set out in the LAW and domestic law concerning the determination of the compensation to be paid in expropriation cases . Therefore , the calculation by ORG in its decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been made in accordance with the law . It accepted the report on the grounds that the valuation of the property had been based on the open market value following contemporary valuation methods for immovable properties such as the direct comparison and the state of the development of the property and taking also into consideration the location of the property , the development of the property , its actual development on the basis of legal documents as well as analysing the values of sales and rents of similar properties . The experts had also tried to analyse increases or decreases in the market prices of sales or purchases of similar properties . Under the expert report , the price per square metre was ORG CARDINAL ( ALL CARDINAL ) in respect of the flats and LAW ( ALL CARDINAL ) in respect of the business LOC . The price was calculated using the average market value during DATE based on a ORG of ORG decision “ on the valuation methods for immovable properties in GPE ” which stated that such calculations are made in accordance with international valuation standards .

ORG also recalculated the surface area of the expropriated property , stating that it actually measured QUANTITY . Furthermore , it included all the owners of ORG in the list of parties to be compensated , as some of the applicants had been excluded from the list under the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . Lastly , the court ruled that the compensation was to be paid by ORG and GPE in CARDINAL tranches over DATE from the moment the court ’s decision became final . Both ORG and GPE were obliged to pay jointly the judicial costs and expenses including the PERSON fee , the court fees for lodging the claim ( ALL CARDINAL ) and the ORG fee for the representation of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( applicants in the proceedings before ORG ) , ORG and PERSON ( not applicants before ORG ) , which amounted to LAW ( ALL CARDINAL ) in total .

On an unspecified date thereafter the applicants lodged an appeal against the part of ORG decision of DATE concerning the amount of compensation and the manner in which it was to be paid . They argued that the expert report did not reflect the market value of the property , which was much higher than the value indicated , and that the valuation standards for expropriated properties had not been complied with . More concretely , the experts had not complied with the criteria and standards provided for by ORG ( NORP ) and the valuation standards based on the financial and legal interests of the applicants . The property had had a higher value at the time of its expropriation . The experts had not specified the value of the specific components of the relevant calculation formula or the market value for every flat in order to reflect the market value of the building . Nor had they taken into consideration all the official data in the purchase agreements for the flats . They also complained of factual and calculation errors in the expert report and requested that another be produced . An appeal was also lodged by the Attorney ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld in part the ORG decision of DATE . It reiterated the facts of the case as noted by ORG and upheld the amount of compensation awarded , the size of the construction land and the list of owners concerned . It decided that the applicants should be compensated individually based on the size of their property . The total amount of compensation ( ALL CARDINAL ) was to be divided as follows : ALL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square metre in respect of the flats , which measured QUANTITY in total , and ALL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square QUANTITY in respect of the business LOC , which measured QUANTITY in total . It decided that the value calculated in the expert report represented the real value and just compensation in accordance with the LAW , LAW , LAW and other by - laws . It ruled that the compensation was to be paid by ORG in CARDINAL lump sum . ORG was also obliged to pay the legal costs and expenses .

Both the applicants and the Attorney ORG lodged an appeal with ORG against the lower courts’ judgments . The applicants requested a higher amount of compensation for their expropriated property . ORG , however , requested that the execution of the decision be stayed .

On DATE ORG , on the basis of LAW ORG allowed the request of ORG and the proceedings were stayed . The decision contained no reasoning . The case is still pending before ORG . There is no information in the case file on what grounds ORG appealed against the lower courts’ decisions and requested a stay of execution .

It appears from the ORG ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that on DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against the head of ORG , alleging irregularities in the proceedings leading to the granting of the building permit on DATE . The case was sent to GPE for trial . There is no information about the outcome of those proceedings .

On DATE the first applicant and another resident lodged CARDINAL separate criminal complaints with ORG , alleging abuse of power on the part of officials of the ORG and the police officers of ORG involved in the seizure of ORG on DATE . They complained that they had not been allowed to enter their homes , that ORG had cordoned off the building with police crime scene tape and that inspectors of the ORG had entered the building . They also asked the authorities to take measures to end the arbitrary interference with their property rights , which was still continuing DATE that they lodged the criminal complaint .

In DATE ORG decided not to initiate criminal proceedings , on the grounds that the actions did not constitute a criminal offence ( fakti i kallëzuar nuk parashikohet nga ligji si vepër penale ) . It reasoned that the ORG ’s employees under domestic law had been entitled to carry out the inspection and verify the regularity of the documents concerning the approval of the building permit and the implementation of its technical standards by the construction company . They had accordingly been entitled to enter the premises of ORG . Furthermore , the officers of ORG had been entitled to cooperate with and support the ORG . After the authorities had carried out the inspection criminal proceedings had been instituted , therefore the suspicion of non - compliance with the rules and urban planning conditions had been realistic . ORG further reasoned that CARDINAL of the complainants had said that when he had returned to the building DATE he had seen officers of ORG inside and had been allowed to enter his flat freely after showing them his certificate of ownership . That statement had also been corroborated with the information given by the ORG and the LOC police .

On DATE ORG , following a request lodged by ORG ( Task - Forca për ORG – a body under the authority of the Minister of ORG ) , instituted a criminal investigation against CARDINAL public officials ( some of them employees of the LOC , others employees of GPE ) for possible abuse of power because of the irregularity of the proceedings concerning the restitution of the applicants’ property and the subsequent proceedings concerning the issuance of the building permit . On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings in respect of CARDINAL of the public officials and the remaining CARDINAL were acquitted . The proceedings are currently pending before ORG following an appeal by ORG .

On DATE an article was published on the official website of the GPE reading , inter alia , as follows :

“ DATE GPE instituted an action for the demolition of illegal buildings in the GPE area of ORG . The head of GPE declared that DATE the Municipality had already demolished CARDINAL other illegal buildings situated in Radhimë village in the city of PERSON . These actions [ were ] aimed at clearing and releasing territory which had been unlawfully occupied , as well as the management of the urban territory . He also declared that the process for the demolition of all illegal buildings would continue on the whole LOC coastline . The second phase would deal with the revaluation of lawful constructions which have not been constructed in accordance with the regulatory planning and the touristic perspective of PERSON ... GPE in cooperation with the new Government will provide for legal forms of compensation or if necessary , financial indemnification . In this category there were [ CARDINAL ] buildings , amongst others , [ which ] impeded the implementation of the PERSON [ promenade ] construction project . ”

DATE . On DATE an article was published on an online portal , ORG , stating that the authorities in PERSON were continuing with the demolition of buildings in the area where the promenade would be constructed . Provisional permits had been issued by the authorities for the buildings which operated as bars and restaurants during DATE .

On DATE an article was published on an online portal , ORG , stating that the residents of ORG were unable to enter the building . The article mentioned that , according to the ORG , the building had been seized so that the authorities could inspect the building permit , the relevant documentation for the construction , and whether or not the building permit had been carried out in compliance with the law . ORG , having been contacted by ORG ( a national television station ) , had clarified that the police had taken part in the actions taken on DATE to support the ORG . The head of the ORG had declared that they were still examining the case and if any shortcomings resulted , the ORG would then have to decide whether or not to demolish the building .

It appears from the evidence submitted by the applicants that on DATE a local television channel broadcast in their news bulletin that the ORG , supported by police officers , had started the procedure for the demolition of the building . According to the broadcast , on DATE the demolition was considered to be partial , and the residents of the building were given DATE to remove their movable property from their flats . The owners of the residential premises had not removed their movable property on the grounds that the authorities had not properly valued their flats , whereas the owners of the business premises had duly removed their movable property . The authorities had valued their flats as being worth EUR QUANTITY per square metre , whereas they had paid ORG QUANTITY when they had bought them . However , according to the broadcast it was noted that the procedure for the demolition of the property had already been started by the authorities following ORG having been blocked for a long time .

On DATE an online portal , PERSON , published an article stating that ORG ( ORG për ORG – “ the PERSON ” , the former ORG ) , had initiated proceedings for the demolition of illegal buildings so as to make possible the implementation of the PERSON project . A CARDINAL - storey building had already been demolished on DATE , and the demolition of CARDINAL other buildings ( bars ) would happen in DATE that followed .

On DATE an online portal , ORG , published an article stating that the PERSON had initiated an operation in GPE for the implementation of the PERSON project . The PERSON had already demolished a single - storey building . It would also demolish another building . During the first part of the operation the PERSON had already demolished CARDINAL other buildings .

On DATE the PERSON addressed a letter to ORG . In so far as relevant , the letter reads as follows :

“ ... [ The ] ORG had exercised their functions in accordance with domestic law . On DATE the ORG , in the presence of a representative of ORG , inspected the construction site of ORG . All the remaining procedures followed by the ORG were based on the ORG of ORG decision of DATE . On the basis of the expropriation procedure GPE on DATE had requested the ORG ’s cooperation with the implementation of ORG decision to demolish immovable properties which would be expropriated . On the basis of this request , the ORG had carried out the demolition of the building in cooperation with ORG , ORG , ORG and GPE ... In the present case the ORG had complied with the interim order of CARDINAL DATE and had not taken any action in breach of this decision . In compliance with the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and following the request of GPE it had undertaken all the necessary steps for the demolition of the building ... in the present case there had not been any administrative or criminal investigation in respect of the applicants’ claims concerning the non - enforcement of the interim order ... the use of yellow crime scene tape had not been made by the ORG . It is true that the ORG had requested the support of ORG , however it is not the ORG ’s competence to dictate or examine the manner and equipment used by ORG for securing the perimeter of the site under the authorities’ control ... the ORG had not taken any action that could have impeded the applicants in exercising their property rights . The object of the inspection had been the building and the subject of the inspection had not been the residents but the construction company and the activities of the ORG employees . ”

The Government submitted as part of their observations domestic case - law consisting of CARDINAL decisions of the district courts allowing appellants’ claims for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the demolition of their properties by the ORG and ORG . In CARDINAL case the demolition had occurred in respect of a property which had been illegally built but for which proceedings for its legalisation were ongoing . The claim was allowed under LAW and ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of ORG . In the other case the district court allowed the appellants’ claim for compensation on the grounds that the demolition of the property had occurred despite another court taking a decision to suspend the ORG ’s decision to demolish the property for being illegally built . The claim was allowed under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG . It is unclear whether the CARDINAL district court decisions became final .

The Government also submitted CARDINAL other domestic court decisions in which the domestic courts allowed the ORG claim for a higher amount of compensation for their expropriated property in the public interest .

At the hearing the ORG representative pleaded that on DATE the applicants had lodged a request with GPE for compensation . On DATE GPE had asked the applicants to produce a copy of their certificate of ownership accompanied by a map of flats issued by the LOC within DATE . The applicants did not submit the CARDINAL documents . They further submitted that the ORG had refused to issue the certificates ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .


Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Päivi Hirvelä;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 ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

The applicant was born , went to school and grew up in the municipality of DATE . In DATE he inherited real estate from his parents , and he returned to live in the house situated on the property . His closest family members as well his friends live in the area .

In DATE the applicant obtained a building permit allowing him to extend the house situated on the inherited property . During the works , the applicant ’s application for communal aid for increasing energy - efficiency was rejected by the municipality as the real estate was marked in the detailed plan as a holiday home and not as a house destined for permanent , year - round use .

NORP By letter dated DATE , the applicant requested that the municipality grant a derogation ( poikkeaminen , undantag ) from the planning norms and change the entry in its records from a holiday home into a house in permanent use , in order to reflect the real situation .

On DATE the municipal environmental board rejected the applicant ’s request . It reasoned its decision by stating that the real estate was situated in an area destined for holiday homes and that the building permit had been granted only for a holiday home . Accepting a derogation in the applicant ’s case would affect the realisation of plans and be detrimental to urban development . If a derogation were made in the applicant ’s case , then all other landowners would have the same right , as they all had to be treated equally . Moreover , the real estate was located a long way from the services of the municipality and was not therefore suitable for permanent residence .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of the municipal environmental board to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that his house be designated as a house for permanent residence . He pointed out that the house fulfilled the requirements for a house in permanent use . The neighbours did not object to the applicant ’s request . Moreover , the house was situated QUANTITY from the centre of the municipality and such a location was not in any way unusual in other villages . Accepting the applicant ’s request would not create any new service obligations for the municipality .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . It found that the applicant ’s house was located in an area which , in detailed plans , was destined for holiday use only . The same plans indicated other areas in which permanent housing should be concentrated . The equal treatment of all landowners required that they should also be able to live permanently in the area in question , which would lead to an uncontrolled increase in permanent housing in the area . The applicant ’s personal circumstances and the fact that the house in question was suitable for permanent residence were not relevant in the present case .

By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal presented before ORG . Moreover , the applicant argued that the right to live permanently in a place of one ’s choice could not be dependent on the municipality in which CARDINAL lived and the will of a particular civil servant in that municipality . The question of a constitutionally - protected right to equal treatment of citizens arose , since similar requests had been accepted in other municipalities . For example in the GPE area the municipalities had abandoned the idea that permanent housing could not be accepted in sparsely populated areas .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

NORP In order to avoid periodic penalty payments which were likely to be imposed , the applicant moved to a rented apartment in GPE .

On an unspecified date the applicant applied again for communal aid for increasing energy - efficiency .

On DATE the applicant ’s request was again rejected by the municipality .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant requested that the municipal environmental board rectify the decision of DATE and state that there was no impediment to registering his house as a house for permanent use .

On DATE the municipal environmental board upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE not to grant communal aid for increasing energyefficiency . No decision was made concerning the registration of the applicant ’s house as a house for permanent use . It is not known whether the applicant appealed further against this decision .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides the following :

“ Freedom of movement

NORP citizens and foreigners legally resident in GPE have the right to move freely within the country and to choose their place of residence . ”

According to LAW :

“ Everyone is equal before the law .

No one shall , without an acceptable reason , be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex , age , origin , language , religion , conviction , opinion , health , disability or other reason that concerns his or her person .... ”

According to LAW , if in a matter being tried by a court of law the application of an Act would be in evident conflict with LAW , the court of law shall give primacy to the provision in the LAW .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of ORG ja rakennuslaki , markanvändnings- och bygglagen , Act no . CARDINAL ) provides that a building permit is required to substantially alter the intended use of a building or part thereof . When the need for the permit is considered , the impact the alteration will have on implementation of a land use plan and on other land use , and on the attributes required of the building are taken into account . Alteration of intended use requiring a permit includes altering a holiday home so that it is fit for permanent residence . Unless the area is specifically designated for this purpose in the local detailed plan , the building of a large retail unit shall be considered to have the aforementioned impact on land use .

According to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the same LAW , when special cause exists , the local authority may grant a right to derogate from the provisions , regulations , prohibitions and other restrictions issued in or under LAW concerning building and other action . Section CARDINAL , subsections CARDINAL - CARDINAL , of the same LAW provide that

“ Derogation shall not :

CARDINAL ) impede planning , the implementation of plans or other organisation of land use ;

CARDINAL ) hinder attainment of the goals of nature conservation ; or

CARDINAL ) hinder attainment of goals concerning the conservation of built - up environment .

A right to derogate may not be granted if it leads to building with substantial impact or if it has other substantially harmful environmental or other impact . ”

ORG has , in its decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , accepted in a case similar to the applicant ’s case that the municipal building and environmental board could impose a periodic penalty payment to real estate owners in order to stop their unlawful use of a holiday home as a permanent residence .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Gelgaudiškis , ORG .

On DATE the ORG police arrested the applicant ’s son , GPE , on suspicion of unlawful possession of narcotic substances with the purpose of distributing them under LAW .

NORP On that same day the police searched the applicant ’s apartment where she lived together with GPE , and found some small plastic bags . DATE a search was conducted in the applicant ’s daughter PERSON ’s apartment . As PERSON was living abroad , the applicant provided the police officers with the keys to GPE ’s apartment and was present during the search . The officers found some plastic bags , a digital weighing scales , and remnants of “ herbal substances ” ( augalinės kilmės medžiagos ) .

On DATE the ORG authorised GPE ’s detention for DATE .

On DATE an officer informed the head of ORG that GPE had unlawfully carried a mobile phone into detention . Most of the information on that phone , including any text messages sent by GPE , had been deleted but police officers found several text messages which GPE had received from his fiancée on DATE and DATE , including the following :

“ Will not risk transfer now , [ it ’s been ] said . ”

“ Do n’t use that phone at all , do n’t you understand . ”

“ She is telling me something else . ”

“ Throw that phone away , do n’t you understand , mother already knows what to do . ”

“ Give me their number , I ’ll arrange for us to give it later . We ca n’t give it now . Your mother was questioned DATE and almost got arrested , do n’t you understand ? It ’s all hidden now . ”

“ Mother does n’t give anything , I ’m telling you the customs office is watching everything . ”

In TIME DATE the applicant arrived at ORG station , where GPE was detained , to bring him food and clean clothes .

At TIME that day the applicant was informed by a senior investigator that she was being placed under provisional arrest ( laikinas sulaikymas ) , on the basis of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . The decision to arrest the applicant indicated that she was suspected of unlawful possession of narcotic substances with the purpose of distribution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Provisional arrest had been deemed necessary in order to prevent her from fleeing , interfering with the investigation or committing further crimes because it was suspected that she had previously hidden drugs from the investigators ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The record of the provisional arrest , drawn up at the time of the arrest , stated that the applicant had been explained her rights , including the right to a lawyer , and that she had refused to sign the record . The applicant was placed in the LOC police station in a nearby cell to her son . Her husband was informed of her arrest . At that time the applicant was DATE .

On DATE the applicant was served with the official notice that she was a suspect ( pranešimas apie įtarimą ) . The notice stated that in DATE she had allegedly acquired drugs from unidentified persons , kept them in her daughter PERSON ’s apartment with the purpose of distribution , and subsequently distributed them , thereby committing the act proscribed in LAW . The applicant signed the notice that she was an official suspect , to indicate that she had received it and that her rights had been explained to her .

From TIME until TIME DATE the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the case , in the presence of a lawyer . She denied having committed any crimes and refused to answer any further questions .

At some point during DATE the applicant started feeling weak , and felt a headache and a pain in her chest . An ambulance was called to the police station and the applicant was given first aid .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer submitted a request to the ORG district prosecutor to release the applicant from provisional arrest . The lawyer argued that the applicant had not committed any crime and that she had only been arrested to pressurise her to testify against her son .

At TIME DATE the ORG police released the applicant . The decision to release her stated that all the necessary investigative actions concerning the applicant had been conducted , and that there were no grounds to believe that she would interfere with the investigation upon her release .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor rejected the applicant ’s lawyer ’s request to release the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as based on “ subjective and declaratory statements ” and thus unfounded . According to the applicant , she did not appeal against that decision because she had already been released .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation against the applicant on the grounds of insufficient evidence that she had committed the crime outlined in LAW .

The ORG police continued the pre - trial investigation concerning the applicant ’s son GPE The police obtained his call records and questioned several witnesses who admitted to having bought cannabis from GPE

On DATE the ORG convicted GPE of unlawful possession of narcotic substances with the purpose of distribution under LAW . On DATE ORG dismissed GPE ’s appeal , and on DATE ORG dismissed his appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim for damages against the ORG under LAW . She claimed that her provisional arrest had been unfounded because she had not committed any crimes , as proven by the subsequent discontinuation of the pre - trial investigation . The applicant also argued that her arrest had been unnecessary because at the time she had been DATE , ailing and had had difficulties walking ; she had had no prior convictions , had been retired and had had a place of residence with her husband . Thus , she claimed that it had been unlikely that she would have attempted to flee or hide from the investigation . The applicant noted that the investigation against her son had been instituted on DATE , and there had been no indication from DATE until her arrest that the police suspected that she had committed any crimes or attempted to interfere with the investigation on the contrary , she had voluntarily come to the police station to see her son . The applicant argued that the real purpose of arresting her had been to force her to testify against her son .

The applicant further submitted that she had suffered pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage because of the provisional arrest : her blood pressure had risen and as a result she had had to seek medical help and take medication ; she had become irritable , had started having nightmares and was scared of police officers ; she felt humiliated in front of her son who had been detained in a nearby cell , as well as other inhabitants of her village , who subsequently thought of her as a criminal . The applicant claimed CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage resulting from her legal expenses , as well as LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .

At the hearing before ORG the applicant also submitted that , after arresting her , the police officers had searched her purse and tried to strip search her , but she had resisted . She stated that the cell in which she had been detained had been damp and dilapidated and that there had been smells emanating from the toilet which had made her nauseous .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . The court noted that the termination of the pre - trial investigation against the applicant did not make the investigation unlawful ab initio , and found that there had been sufficient grounds for suspicions against her : plastic bags had been found in the apartment where she lived together with her son GPE , and remnants of drugs had been found in the applicant ’s daughter PERSON ’s apartment . Furthermore , while detained , GPE had unlawfully been in possession of a mobile phone , and the police officers had had grounds to believe that he had warned the applicant to hide the drugs which had been stored in GPE ’s apartment . Accordingly , the court found that the applicant ’s provisional arrest had been well - founded . The court also noted that the applicant had not appealed against the district prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE to refuse her release ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which meant that the decision to arrest her had not been declared unlawful . Lastly , the court held that the medical documents submitted by the applicant did not prove that the deterioration of her health had been caused by the provisional arrest . The court did not address the applicant ’s complaints concerning the conditions of her detention .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . It upheld the findings of the first - instance court that at the time of the arrest there had been sufficient evidence to suspect the applicant of having committed a crime , and that the subsequent discontinuation of the pre - trial investigation did not make the arrest unlawful . ORG also noted that LAW permitted the provisional arrest not only of a suspect but also any other person in respect of whom it was necessary to conduct certain investigative actions . Having found that the applicant ’s arrest had been lawful , the court held that there were no grounds to award the applicant any damages . It did not address the applicant ’s complaints concerning the conditions of her detention .

On DATE , following an appeal on points of law by the applicant , ORG refused to examine the case as raising no important legal questions .


CASE OF BUZADJI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the applicant , who was the director of a ORG company ( referred to herein as “ B - G ” ) , acknowledged in court that the company owed a private company MONEY ( ORG ) plus penalties ( the total sum being LAW ) as a result of purchasing liquefied gas from that private company . On DATE he was dismissed from his job .

According to the applicant , in DATE the investigating authorities summoned him to appear before them and to make a statement in connection with the alleged defrauding of PERSON He was subsequently summoned on several occasions and always appeared before the investigating authorities and cooperated with them . According to the materials submitted by the parties , CARDINAL different criminal investigations were initiated against the applicant and his CARDINAL sons : the first CARDINAL were initiated on DATE , but most of the others on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE all the investigations were joined .

It can also be observed in the case file that the applicant ’s sons were summoned to appear before the investigating authorities in DATE and were questioned as suspects in the case . It appears that the applicant ’s sons were never arrested . On DATE an invoice allegedly used for defrauding B - G was seized from the company . On DATE the applicant ’s personal computer was seized and various documents were recovered which allegedly proved the defrauding of B - G by the applicant .

On DATE ORG upheld an application to initiate bankruptcy proceedings which had been brought against PERSON

On DATE ORG quashed the lower courts’ judgments because it had been established that the debt to the private company was fictitious . The court relied , inter alia , on the results of a review of the economic and financial activities of PERSON The case was sent for retrial by the lower courts and is still pending .

On DATE a further review of the economic and financial activities of PERSON was carried out .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . On CARDINAL DATE he was formally charged with defrauding PERSON

On DATE ORG accepted an application made by the prosecutor and ordered the applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE . The court found that :

“ ... the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged is considered an exceptionally serious crime , which allows for detention pending trial , [ the court ] takes into account the nature and seriousness of the offence and the complexity of the case , and considers that at this incipient stage of the investigation there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused could collude with other people ( his sons , who have not been interviewed ) in order to take a common position .

The other statements of the prosecution concerning the possibility that the accused may abscond , the danger of influencing witnesses or of destroying evidence are not substantiated by any specific information and are not very probable . ”

The applicant appealed , referring to the ongoing civil proceedings concerning the debt owed by PERSON to the private company , as well as to a confirmation of that debt by an administrator appointed in the meantime by the court . He further relied on the absence of any material in the file suggesting that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation in any manner . Moreover , as confirmed by medical certificates , the applicant ( who was TIME the time ) suffered from a number of illnesses requiring in - patient treatment , which was unavailable in pre - trial detention . He was a well - known individual with a family , a residence and a job in GPE and who had appeared before the investigating authorities every time he had been summoned during the period from DATE to DATE . He further argued that the court had not even had the case file concerning the investigation in question before it when it had decided on his detention pending trial . The judge had only seen several documents concerning the charges against the applicant and the review of the economic activity of PERSON ( referred to above ) . The applicant added that his CARDINAL sons had not been formally charged with any crime and that in any event if they had wished to collude they had had plenty of time to do so since DATE when they first learned of the investigation .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , essentially repeating the reasons given by the lower court .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention pending trial by DATE . After recapitulating the parties’ positions and citing the applicable provisions of the law , the court found that :

“ ... the grounds relied on when applying the preventive measure [ of detention ] remain valid , the majority of the investigative actions have been carried out , but a number of additional measures requiring [ the applicant ’s ] participation are still necessary in order to send the case to the trial court . The court considers that the application on the part of the defence to replace the preventive measure [ with house arrest ] is premature , taking into account the seriousness and complexity of the case and the need to protect public order and the public interest , as well as to ensure the smooth and objective course of the investigation . ”

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court gave essentially the same reasons as it had in its decision of CARDINAL DATE , adding that :

“ the risk that the applicant may destroy evidence persists , since the prosecutor has declared that not all the documents relating to the financial and economic activities [ of the company ] have been seized in order to be subjected to an expert analysis . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision , finding that it had been adopted in compliance with the law . The court also noted that the applicant was accused of a particularly serious offence which had allegedly caused damage to PERSON of MONEY NORP lei ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) and which was punishable by a prison term of CARDINAL to twenty - five years , that he had been charged with CARDINAL different offences , and that the investigation was still ongoing . If released he might be able to abscond or to influence witnesses who were staff at B - G and over whom he had influence .

On DATE ORG rejected a further application by the prosecutor for an extension of the applicant ’s detention pending trial and accepted the applicant ’s request by ordering that he be placed under house arrest for DATE . The court found that :

“ ... the applicant has been detained for DATE and has participated in all the necessary investigative actions ; ... LAW imposes a presumption that an accused be freed while he awaits his trial ; ... certain evidence , which may have been sufficient earlier to justify [ detention ] or to render alternative preventive measures inadequate , could become less convincing with the passage of time ; ... it is for the prosecutor to prove the existence of a risk of absconding , and such a risk can not be proved only by reference to the severity of the potential punishment ; [ the court referred to the applicant ’s medical problems and his age , the lack of a criminal record , his permanent residence and married status ] ; the [ ORG ] ’s case - law provides that detention pending trial should be exceptional , always objectively reasoned and must correspond to the public interest ; the court finds that it is improbable that [ the applicant ] will abscond , influence witnesses or destroy evidence , and that the normal course of the criminal investigation is possible while the accused is under house arrest . ”

The court set the following conditions for the applicant ’s house arrest : prohibition from leaving his house ; prohibition of having phone calls ; prohibition from discussing his case with any person .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and adopted a new one , ordering the applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE . The court found that :

“ ... the lower court did not take into account the complexity of the case and the seriousness of the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged ; the court considers that while under house arrest [ the applicant ] could communicate with the other accomplices , who are not under arrest and who are , moreover , his sons ; he could abscond by fleeing to the [ self - proclaimed and unrecognised “ GPE ” ] , which is not under the control of the GPE authorities ; he could influence witnesses , who are his former staff , in order to make them change their statements ; the applicant has received visits from doctors and can obtain medical assistance in prison . ”

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention pending trial by DATE . It gave the same reasons as it had done earlier . The applicant appealed , relying on essentially the same arguments as he had done earlier . The court recalled the prosecutor ’s position , including the fact that the investigation had already been finalised and the file was ready to be presented to the applicant and his lawyers so that they could prepare for the trial . It also noted that

“ the preventive measure of arrest was applied due to the seriousness of the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged , the need to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings and of securing public order , as well as the existence of reasons to believe that he could exert negative influence on the course of the proceedings or abscond . ”

The court then cited article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and found that “ the grounds relied on by the prosecutor are applicable ” .

On DATE ORG quashed the lower court ’s decision and adopted a new one , changing the preventive measure to house arrest . The court found that :

“ the prosecutor did not provide any evidence confirming the continued need to detain [ the applicant ] , did not submit additional materials confirming the probability that he could exert influence on witnesses who have already been heard ; [ the applicant ] promises to appear before the investigating authorities whenever summoned ; there is no specific information concerning any risk of absconding ” .

The house arrest was maintained by the decisions of the Comrat District Court of DATE and DATE . On DATE the same court decided to release the applicant on bail , finding that he had been detained and then under house arrest for over DATE and never breached any of the restrictions imposed on him .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

The applicant received a summons from investigator PERSON to attend office no . CARDINAL at the LOC police department of the town of GPE ( отдел внутренних дел Советского района г. Орска ) at TIME on DATE . The summons contained no further details . At TIME on DATE the applicant , who was DATE at the time , arrived at the police station , as requested , together with his father and his friend PERSON A police officer on duty registered their arrival at the police station . Investigator PERSON was absent and the applicant was asked to wait . Police officer PERSON took the applicant to his office .

At some point the applicant ’s father was asked to participate in an investigative measure . When this was finished he could not locate the applicant at the police station . He and PERSON were requested by police officer PERSON to leave the building . They remained outside near the main entrance waiting for the applicant . At some point they were told that the applicant was no longer in the police station . They left at about CARDINAL p.m. As the applicant did not appear at home his parents enquired about his whereabouts at the LOC police department , by telephone and in person . After many unsuccessful attempts they were finally told that the applicant had gone to police station no . CARDINAL together with police officer PERSON . and that he had stayed there until TIME

According to the applicant , police officer PERSON . took him to an experts’ room where he was photographed and fingerprinted . Then , shortly after TIME , PERSON . led him out of the police station from a back door in the experts’ room and took him to GPE police department no . CARDINAL in a police car for questioning . According to the police station logbook , the applicant left the LOC district police station at TIME on DATE .

The applicant provided the following account of events at police department no . CARDINAL . The head of the police department , P. , and police officer PERSON interviewed him about his alleged involvement in thefts from certain shops . The applicant denied involvement in the thefts . PERSON shackled the applicant ’s hands behind his back , told him “ to sit on the floor with his legs crossed in front of him ” , tied his legs with a rope , “ threw the rope across the neck to the back ” , “ hung it on a chair and pulled it ” . The applicant felt severe pain in his back .

At some point operative police officer PERSON came in and interviewed the applicant . When PERSON and PERSON both came out PERSON untied the applicant ’s legs and demanded that the applicant write a statement of “ surrender and confession ” . The applicant maintained his refusal . PERSON opened the door and called PERSON The applicant “ understood that he would be tortured again ” . He ran up and hit his head against the glass door of a bookcase . The glass broke and the applicant received cuts on his face above the left eyebrow and on his head .

Then PERSON tied the applicant ’s hands and legs behind his back , passed a metal bar under the rope and hung him on the bar , the ends of which were put on the table and the back of a chair . The applicant had been hanging in that position for TIME when somebody took the bar off and asked PERSON to untie the applicant . PERSON refused .

At some point PERSON came out and the applicant was untied and the handcuffs were removed from him . PERSON demanded again that the applicant write a statement of “ surrender and confession ” . The applicant started writing the statement as requested . P. came in together with lawyer PERSON who offered his services as counsel for the applicant ’s defence . The applicant refused because he wished to be represented by a lawyer of his own choice .

Reluctant to continue writing the confession statement , the applicant was taken by PERSON , who was allegedly drunk , to his office . An ambulance , which had been called after the incident with the broken glass , arrived and the applicant was examined by the ambulance medical assistant , who provided him with first aid and left .

Thereafter the applicant was questioned by QUANTITY police officers , who were also drunk . CARDINAL of them hit the applicant several times on both ears simultaneously with the palms of his hands . The other police officer punched him in the head .

Then PERSON tied the applicant up and hung him on the bar again . The applicant saw blood dripping from his head to the floor .

Police officer PERSON untied the applicant and demanded that he finish writing the statement of “ surrender and confession ” . The applicant did so and was allowed by PERSON to leave . The applicant went home , which was QUANTITY away , on foot .

At TIME the applicant arrived home . At TIME he was hospitalised . According to the medical records of town hospital no . CARDINAL , where he stayed for in - patient treatment until DATE , at the time of his admission the applicant was complaining of headache , nausea , vomiting and giddiness . He explained that he had been beaten up by police officers TIME previously . He had an abrasion up to QUANTITY long over the left eyebrow and bruises on his scalp . He was diagnosed with an abrasion on the left superciliary arch , contusions of the soft tissues of the head and concussion .

The evidence in the case file indicates that police officer PERSON drew up a record of the applicant ’s being “ conveyed ” ( доставление ) to the police station . According to that record , at TIME on DATE the applicant was brought to the police station “ for examination ” ( разбирательство ) and searched in the presence of attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON . It was stated in the record , which was signed by police officer PERSON , the CARDINAL attesting witnesses and the applicant , that the applicant , a “ violator ” , had been informed of the rights and obligations of a person against whom administrative proceedings were initiated . The record contained no further details .

On DATE the GPE police department was alerted by the town hospital that the applicant had been taken to hospital with injuries allegedly inflicted by police officers .

On DATE the PERSON district prosecutor ’s office received information about the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment by police officers .

On DATE the applicant ’s father complained to the Sovetskiy district prosecutor ’s office that the applicant had been the victim of police ORG unlawful actions . On DATE he lodged a similar complaint with the GPE regional prosecutor ’s office .

The Sovetskiy district prosecutor ’s office carried out a preliminary inquiry . Its investigator PERSON received explanations from a number of persons , including the following persons .

On DATE lawyer PERSON stated that on DATE , some time after QUANTITY [ the head of the police department ] P. had asked him to be present at an investigative measure as counsel for the defence of the applicant , who was suspected of having committed a crime . S. had seen coagulated blood on the applicant ’s eyebrow and on his head . S. had asked the operative officers to leave the office and asked the applicant about the origin of his injuries . The applicant had explained that he himself had hit his head against a bookcase . S. had offered his services as counsel for his defence . The applicant refused , as he wanted lawyer PERSON to defend him .

On DATE police officer PERSON stated that he had left work at TIME on DATE . At a bus stop he had seen the applicant who had been suspected of having committed thefts from CARDINAL shops . PERSON had taken the applicant to the police station , where he had invited CARDINAL attesting witnesses so that a record could be drawn up about the applicant ’s being conveyed to the police station and searched . In the presence of the attesting witnesses the applicant had jumped from his chair and hit his head against the glass door of a bookcase . The glass had broken and the applicant had received cuts on his eyebrow and head . PERSON had provided the applicant with first aid , had drawn up the record of his being conveyed to the police station , and had transferred him to operative officer PERSON TIME later PERSON had brought the applicant back , as the applicant was complaining of feeling unwell . PERSON had called an ambulance . The ambulance staff had provided the applicant with first aid . PERSON denied any use of force or psychological pressure in relation to the applicant .

On DATE the head of the police department PERSON stated that at TIME on DATE he had been informed that the applicant had been brought to the police station on suspicion of having committed a theft . P. gave statements similar to those by PERSON about the applicant hitting the bookcase with his head . According to P. , the applicant had stayed at the police station for TIME and had left at TIME None of his subordinates had committed any unlawful actions in relation to the applicant .

On DATE attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON . stated that at TIME they had been invited to be present as attesting witnesses at the applicant ’s search . After being searched the applicant had jumped to his feet , run up and hit his head against a bookcase . The glass of the bookcase had broken and the applicant had cut his eyebrow . CARDINAL police officers had been present during the incident .

On DATE police officer PERSON . stated that on DATE at the LOC police station he had taken the applicant to the experts’ room , where the applicant had been fingerprinted and photographed , and then to the exit . PERSON . denied having taken the applicant to police station no . CARDINAL .

On DATE operative officer PERSON stated that the police had had information , notably explanations by an eyewitness to a theft at a certain shop , that the applicant could have been involved in the theft . PERSON had interviewed the applicant , who had been known to the police on account of thefts previously committed by him , at TIME on DATE , after the incident with the broken glass . The applicant had confessed to the theft and had written a statement . After that PERSON had called the ambulance as the applicant was complaining of a headache . PERSON denied any use of force in relation to the applicant .

On DATE investigator PERSON stated that she had requested that the applicant be summoned to the police station for an identity parade in a criminal case concerning assault and battery . On DATE she had carried out the identity parade with the participation of the applicant ’s father . As the applicant ’s lawyer had not appeared she had cancelled the identity parade in which the applicant was to have participated . The applicant had left her office together with police officer PERSON .

Expert PERSON stated that in the afternoon of QUANTITY DATE police officer PERSON . had brought the applicant to the experts’ room . The applicant had been fingerprinted and photographed . PERSON confirmed that there was another exit from the building through the experts’ room . He stated , however , that PERSON . and the applicant had left through another , “ normal ” door , through which they had arrived .

The applicant gave a description of his alleged ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . He stated that he had hit his head against the bookcase in order to stop the ill - treatment . He also stated that police officer PERSON had threatened to kill him if he told the ambulance staff about the illtreatment . When left with lawyer PERSON in private he had told him about the illtreatment and forced confession .

The applicant ’s father and PERSON gave statements about their visit to the police station on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE investigator PERSON ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant , which was carried out by expert PERSON on DATE . The expert was requested to determine the degree of harm to the health of the applicant , who had allegedly been beaten up by police officers on DATE . The applicant complained of recurring headaches . He had a scar over the left eyebrow . Expert PERSON also examined his medical records from the town hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In his report no . CARDINAL the expert concluded that the applicant ’s injuries , notably the concussion , the wound over the left eyebrow and the bruises on the scalp , had been inflicted by hard blunt objects shortly before he was hospitalised . The injuries were qualified as light damage to health as they had caused short - term health disorder .

On DATE investigator PERSON ordered that by virtue of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ CCrP ” ) no criminal proceedings were to be instituted in respect of the applicant ’s complaint , in view of the absence of constituent elements of a crime under LAW ( abuse of power ) in the acts of police officers PERSON . ( as well as under LAW , unlawful arrest or detention ) , P. , PERSON , PERSON ( also under LAW , coercion to obtain statements ) , and CARDINAL others .

On DATE a deputy prosecutor of the Sovetskiy district prosecutor ’s office overturned the investigator ’s decision , as the inquiry on which it was based was considered incomplete , and ordered an additional inquiry .

Investigator PERSON received the following additional explanations .

On DATE N. , a medical assistant , stated that at TIME an ambulance had been called by police station no . CARDINAL . She and PERSON , a junior nurse , had gone to the police station . She had found the applicant in a room with CARDINAL police officers , who had explained to her that the applicant had hit the glass with his head and broken it . She had examined the applicant , who had cuts over the left eyebrow and on the head . Her examination had not revealed any obvious signs of concussion . The applicant had taken off his clothes . She had not seen any visible injuries on his body .

On DATE junior nurse PERSON gave similar explanations . She noted that the applicant had been in a room with CARDINAL police officers , CARDINAL of whom had later come out . Then medical assistant ORG had examined the applicant .

On DATE and DATE Ya . and ORG stated that in DATE they had undergone inpatient treatment at the town hospital and had been in the same ward as the applicant , who had told them that he had been illtreated at the police station . Ya . understood that police officers had handcuffed the applicant and hung him and afterwards hit his head against the wall . According to ORG , police officers had handcuffed the applicant and hung him , and then either he himself had hit the bookcase with his head or police officers had hit his head against the bookcase .

NORP The applicant ’s schoolteacher , NORP , characterised the applicant as sly , deceitful and shifty .

Forensic medical expert PERSON stated that he did not consider it possible to establish reliably how the applicant had received concussion . It could have been the result either of the applicant ’s hitting the bookcase with his head or of being punched on the head .

On DATE , on the basis of the results of the inquiry , investigator PERSON again refused to open a criminal case under LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , on the grounds that the constituent elements of a crime in the acts of police officers PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and CARDINAL others were absent . As before , the investigator referred to a crime under LAW of LAW ( abuse of power ) , as well as LAW ( unlawful arrest or detention ) in relation to Sh . , and LAW ( coercion to obtain statements ) in relation to P. , PERSON and E .. The investigator found that the applicant had been at the LOC police department from TIME until TIME on DATE for an identity parade in a criminal case concerning assault and battery , and that at QUANTITY on the same day police officer PERSON had taken him to police station no . CARDINAL on suspicion of theft . The investigator held that the results of the inquiry had showed that the applicant ’s injuries were self - inflicted , as a result of his hitting the bookcase with his head , and that the allegations of ill - treatment by police officers were devoid of any foundation .

The applicant ’s father appealed against the investigator ’s decision of DATE . He complained , in particular , that the investigator had never held an identity parade in order to identify the CARDINAL unknown police officers who had delivered blows to the applicant ’s head .

On DATE the Orsk ORG , sitting in a single - judge formation , heard the applicant ’s father , his representative and a deputy prosecutor of the LOC prosecutor ’s office , and examined the evidence of the inquiry carried out by the investigator . It was satisfied that the inquiry had been comprehensive and thorough , and that the investigator ’s assessment of its results had been impartial , reasoned and logical . It dismissed the applicant ’s father ’s appeal . It noted that an identity parade could only be held once a criminal case had been opened , which was not the case in the present proceedings .

The applicant ’s father appealed against ORG decision . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal and fully endorsed the first - instance court ’s findings . It held , inter alia , that the evidence of the inquiry had reliably shown that on DATE the applicant had not been arrested as a suspect in a criminal case .