Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

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

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

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

The applicant has been serving a life sentence since DATE . In DATE he was transferred to ORG . In DATE the applicant attempted to murder another convicted inmate and in DATE he was transferred back to FAC . In his written appeal concerning his conviction for the attempt of murder , the applicant asked to be transferred back to FAC and never to be returned to freedom , because he was afraid of liberty .

NORP In DATE the applicant married . At that time his wife was also serving a sentence in FAC but in DATE was transferred to ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant wrote to the administration of FAC requesting a visit from his spouse ; the duration of the visit was not specified in the applicant ’s request . His request was granted ; however , the director of ORG refused to allow his wife to attend the visit , referring to the provisions of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the refusal of ORG to bring his wife to the visit . The complaint was forwarded to ORG . In DATE it issued a response stating that the applicant did not have a right to long - term conjugal visits because he was serving his sentence in prison . ORG stated that the law did not provide for short – term visits for spouses who were both convicted and serving their imprisonment sentences . In DATE he received similar response from ORG . In DATE the applicant also received a response from ORG stating that long - term conjugal visits were not available to convicted inmates serving their sentences in prison . He was also informed that , in accordance with the provisions of domestic law , he would have been entitled to a long - term conjugal visit if he had been transferred to a correctional facility .

In DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s proposal to amend LAW for the Execution of Sentences , so it allowed the spouses who were both serving their imprisonment sentences , and CARDINAL of them was serving his or her sentence in prison , to have CARDINAL long - term or short - term visits per year without the PERSON supervision . ORG held that the applicant ’s proposal did not follow the principles of just and progressive execution of sentences and that if the applicant ’s proposal had been adopted , the convicted spouses , both serving their sentences in correctional facilities , would have been deprived of visits , and would be discriminated . It was also observed that in a number of ORG Member GPE long - term conjugal visits were not allowed for convicted prisoners , and that they could communicate with their family members through short - term or home visits , as well as telephone conversations and letters .

The applicant brought court proceedings complaining about the refusal of his request to be allowed a short - term visit of TIME from his imprisoned spouse without PERSON supervision . The representative of ORG claimed that long - term conjugal visits were not allowed if CARDINAL of the spouses was serving his or her sentence in prison . Convicted inmates , serving their sentences in prisons , had a right to short - term visits but this right was restricted by the provisions of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG stated that the contested provision of domestic law was not applicable to convicted inmates , serving their sentences in prisons because such persons had a right only to short - term visits . But because the provisions of domestic law were silent about short - term visits when both spouses were serving their prison sentences , ORG considered that short - term visits were not available to persons in the applicant ’s situation . On DATE ORG held that the applicant and his wife had a right to a short - term visit of TIME and that his wife also had a right to a long - term conjugal visit of DATE . The court also noted that , under the provisions of domestic law , the applicant could see his spouse at a short - term visit without PERSON supervision , in equipped LOC , upon the approval of the prison director . The court therefore ordered ORG to organise a short - term visit of TIME for the applicant and his wife .

ORG appealed , and on DATE ORG held that a convicted inmate serving a life sentence in prison and belonging to the “ ordinary ” group of prisoners had a right to short - term visits of TIME every two months . However , the court also held that the court of first instance should not have ordered ORG to organise a short - term visit and instead ordered it to reconsider the applicant ’s request to be allowed a shortterm visit .

Following the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE ORG decided that the applicant ’s wife could attend a short - term visit of CARDINAL hours at FAC .

On DATE the applicant received a response from ORG stating that it had decided to allow his wife to attend a short - term visit at FAC .

The applicant was granted short - term visits of TIME with his imprisoned spouse on CARDINAL occasions in DATE ( DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) , QUANTITY occasions in DATE ( DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) , CARDINAL occasions in DATE ( DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) and CARDINAL occasions in DATE ( DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) . The applicant used his right to ask for additional short - term visits and was granted them on DATE and DATE .

According to the information available to the ORG , the applicant never requested any long - term conjugal visits from his wife ; he also never complained that he was not provided with more short - term visits up to TIME .

In DATE and DATE the applicant refused to participate in social rehabilitation programmes .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that there are CARDINAL types of correctional institutions : correctional facilities , juvenile correctional facilities , prisons and open GPE .

Article CARDINAL provides that convicted inmates serving their sentences in a correctional facility are divided into ordinary , light and disciplinary groups . At the material time , Article CARDINAL provided that convicted inmates in a correctional facility assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners had a right to receive CARDINAL long - term and CARDINAL short - term visit DATE . Since an amendment that came into force on DATE , convicted inmates in a correctional facility assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners have had the right to CARDINAL long - term and CARDINAL short - term visit DATE .

Article CARDINAL provides that convicted inmates in prisons are assigned to ordinary and disciplinary groups of prisoners . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that convicted inmates in prisons assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners have a right to receive CARDINAL short - term visit DATE . LAW provides that a short - term visit may take place without the supervision of a representative of the correctional facility . In such cases , visits take place in special LOC .

At the material time , LAW provided that convicted inmates had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to TIME . The nature and number of visits depended on the group of convicted inmates and the correctional institution . Article QUANTITY § CARDINAL provided that a husband and wife both serving prison sentences were allowed to have CARDINAL long - term visits DATE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that life prisoners serve their sentences in prison . Convicted inmates who have served DATE of their life sentence may , taking into account their behaviour in prison and the security risk they pose , at the request of the prison administration or by a decision of the district court be transferred to a correctional facility for the remainder of their sentence .

At the material time , LAW provided that life prisoners served their sentences in prison .


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

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing and was placed in pre - trial detention on the ground that he was suspected of committing a serious offence , was a foreign national , had no permanent place of residence in PERSON , no job , no income , he could abscond and commit crimes .

On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE extended his pre - trial detention on the same grounds .

On DATE ORG issued the first conviction which was quashed by ORG on DATE . The court held that the applicant should remain in detention without indicating any reasons .

By decisions of DATE and DATE , as upheld on appeal , ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention reiterating its earlier reasoning and stating that he could interfere with the investigation and put pressure on witnesses .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a new conviction . On DATE ORG quashed this conviction . The applicant remained in detention .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of drug dealing and smuggling and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE commuted the sentence to DATE imprisonment .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE he was arrested in GPE and subsequently charged with the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition . He remained in detention on remand throughout the pre - trial proceedings . Eventually he entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution , acknowledging that he had committed the offence he had been charged with and accepting a suspended sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

NORP The plea agreement was approved at a court hearing before GPE on DATE . The court ’s decision was final . At the end of the hearing , at TIME , the court ordered the discontinuation of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention .

After the hearing the applicant was brought to ORG , where his pre - trial detention was formally discontinued at TIME However , he was not released but was instead taken to a police station , where he remained throughout TIME DATE . On TIME CARDINAL DATE he was transferred to the city of GPE where , by an order issued at TIME , he was once again formally placed in police custody . That measure was taken in the context of another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant which had been instigated in DATE . On DATE the investigator in charge of that case brought charges against the applicant in connection with another count of unlawful possession of firearms .

In the proceedings before ORG , the Government submitted an order dated DATE , issued by the investigator in charge of the case in GPE and requiring that the applicant be taken by the police to appear before her in order to have charges brought against him . The order referred , in particular , to LAW , CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and , by way of justifying the need to bring the applicant by force , stated that there was a risk of his absconding . The Government explained that by the time that order had been received by the police in GPE , it had become impossible to organise the applicant ’s transfer to GPE DATE . That is why the applicant had been kept in the police station TIME and was only transported to GPE DATE , DATE .


CASE OF MOZER v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione loci;Ratione personae) (Russia);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) (the Republic of Moldova);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Russia);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+9-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (Russia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+9-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (the Republic of Moldova);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (Russia);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (Russia)

Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Ksenija Turković

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant is a NORP national belonging to the NORP ethnic minority . He was born in DATE and lived in PERSON until DATE . Since DATE he has been an asylum seeker in GPE .

ORG submitted that despite all their efforts they had been unable to verify most of the facts of the present case owing to a lack of cooperation on the part of the authorities of the self - proclaimed “ NORP Republic of Transdniestria ” ( the “ FAC ) . They had therefore proceeded , broadly speaking , on the basis of the facts as submitted by the applicant .

ORG did not make any submissions in respect of the facts of the case .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .


Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .

NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention . He also raised a complaint under LAW .


No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

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

The applicant , a former girlfriend of the Prime Minister at the time , wrote an autobiographical book about her relationship with the Prime Minister . The book described a period of DATE in the applicant ’s life when , as a single mother , she dated the Prime Minister , who had earlier divorced his wife . The book described the dating couple ’s life and made references to their intimate interactions . It was published on DATE . The Prime Minister held office from DATE when he stepped down .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges under LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW against the applicant , the publishing company and the representative of the publishing company for having disclosed information about the private life of the Prime Minister ( yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon levittäminen , spridande av information som kränker privatlivet ) . He also requested that the proceeds of the crime be ordered forfeit to the ORG in accordance with LAW , LAW , of LAW . The Prime Minister did not pursue any charges or compensation claims against the applicant . The publishing company and its representative have lodged a separate application with ORG ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the book was withdrawn from sale .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) , after having voted , dismissed the charges against the applicant . It found that the book disclosed a lot of information about the Prime Minister ’s private life but that he had already widely disclosed information about his family and habits as well as about his relationship with the applicant . Even though he himself had published an autobiography in DATE , had given several interviews , ran a blog and even permitted photographs to be taken at his home , he was known as a politician who strictly controlled his public image . The book also contained some information which had not previously been disclosed to the public . In this respect the court found that these new details only completed the information the Prime Minister had disclosed earlier . It was never suggested that the facts disclosed were not true . The book covered a period of DATE in the applicant ’s and the Prime Minister ’s private life . The court found that the applicant had the right to recount her private life . She also described the Prime Minister , his actions and family in a compassionate manner . The court found that , even though the information disclosed in the book had no direct relevance to the Prime Minister ’s political functions or his hierarchical position in the ORG , it had relevance as far as the Prime Minister ’s person was concerned . The LAW required that ministers were “ known to be honest and competent ” . Moreover , the book described a situation in which CARDINAL different realities of DATE NORP society met : a wealthy party leader and Prime Minister on the one hand , and a single mother with everyday money problems on the other hand . The court found that the fact that the applicant was writing about her life and her relationship with one of the highest authorities in the country did not restrict but in fact widened her freedom of expression . When weighing the freedom of expression against the protection of private life , the court found that the need to resort to criminal liability decreased when the disclosed information became more widely known . Criminal liability was the last resort in guiding human behaviour and its use had to be proportionate . The court could therefore not hold that the publication of the applicant ’s book was a criminal act . Moreover , as the applicant was not a professional writer , she could not be regarded as having acted with intent and could not therefore be considered as a perpetrator .

By letter dated DATE the public prosecutor appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) . The Prime Minister also appealed .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant for dissemination of information violating personal privacy and sentenced her to DATE - fines , in total QUANTITY . The proceeds of the crime , QUANTITY , were ordered forfeit to the ORG . The court found that the passages in the book concerning the Prime Minister ’s intimate dating and his children ’s feelings and behaviour unnecessarily violated the core areas of his protected private life . He had not disclosed these details of his private life earlier in the media . The fact that he had disclosed some parts of his private life , the protection of which was , due to his status , much narrower than a private person ’s , did not mean that he could not benefit at all from any protection of his private life . He had thus not waived his right to the protection of private life , nor implicitly consented to the disclosure of information concerning details about his private life . Even though the applicant had the right to write about her private life , disclosure of intimate details of another person ’s private life always required his or her consent . The aim of the applicant ’s book had been to discuss matters of private life and it had no relevance to the Prime Minister ’s political functions or his hierarchical position in the ORG . Nor had it any relevance to the assessment of his personal qualities , such as his lack of honesty and judgment , as the relationship fell within the core areas of his private life and had no relevance to his position as a Prime Minister . Moreover , the applicant could be held as a perpetrator even though she was not a professional writer . Her acts had been intentional .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , requesting that the court establish a precedent in the case as the court had not yet in its case - law assessed freedom of expression in the context of an autobiography .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld ORG conviction but quashed the forfeiture . In particular , by referring extensively to the ORG ’s case - law , it gave a more narrow scope to the Prime Minister ’s private life than ORG . The court found that information about the Prime Minister ’s sex life and intimate events and his children ’s feelings and behaviour had not been disclosed to the public before . The fact that some details of his private life had been disclosed before did not mean that they could not fall within the scope of criminal liability under LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW . The Prime Minister had not waived his right to protection of private life in these respects . Nor had he given his consent to their publication by consenting to the use of his photograph on the cover of the book . The court considered , contrary to ORG , that the information about how and when the Prime Minister had met the applicant and how quickly their relationship had developed had had relevance to general public discussion as these issues had raised the question of whether , in this respect , he had been dishonest and lacked judgment . Also the information concerning the great differences in the standard of living between the applicant and the Prime Minister , his lifestyle , the data protection concerns and the protection of the highest political authorities in general had had relevance to general public discussion . The court found also that disclosure of information about the Prime Minister ’s children was not conducive to causing him damage , suffering and contempt as the applicant had only given her own interpretation of the children ’s attitudes . However , the only references which , according to the court , had illegally disclosed information about the Prime Minister ’s private life were the applicant ’s information and hints about their sex life and intimate events between her and the Prime Minister . The court enumerated in particular CARDINAL parts of the book which contained information about the start of the sex life in the beginning of their relationship , descriptions of their brief and passionate intimate moments as well as giving massages to each other , and accounts of their sexual intercourse . The court found that such information and hints fell within the core area of private life and their unauthorised publication was conducive of causing the Prime Minister suffering and contempt . It was thus necessary to restrict the applicants’ freedom of expression in this respect in order to protect the Prime Minister ’s private life .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was a NORP national , who had been born in DATE and lived in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drugrelated offences .

During several periods DATE and DATE , the applicant was detained in the police ward ( ORG ) of PERSON in GPE . He claimed , in particular , that the cells of the ward were overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition .

On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence .


Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

Applicants CARDINAL to CARDINAL were represented initially by Mr PERSON , from ORG , GPE and , subsequently , by Mr PERSON , director of ORG , GPE , and a lawyer practising in GPE . Applicants DATE were represented , initially , by Mr PERSON from ORG , GPE and , subsequently , by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

The applicants are members of CARDINAL GPE families from the GPE municipality in GPE . They were represented during the domestic proceedings by association “ GPE ( hereafter “ the association ” ) , a nongovernmental organisation based in GPE which deals with GPE issues and whose chair and representative was PERSON .

The CARDINAL applicant families indicated that they had been living in dwellings at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Borimechkata Street in the GPE borough of GPE for DATE . Those dwellings were owned by the municipality and were in a serious state of disrepair .

On DATE an expert committee , tasked by the municipality with verifying the state of repair of municipal buildings , established that the houses at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Borimechkata Street were unfit for use and recommended their demolition .

Once the occupants had been formally put on notice , the mayor of ORG issued CARDINAL orders on DATE , ordering the houses’ demolition as they were unsafe for occupation and also posed a threat to passers - by . The orders indicated that the first , second , fifth , sixth , seventh , DATE , eighteenth , DATE , CARDINAL and QUANTITY applicants were occupying the houses at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Borimechkata Street , unlawfully .

NORP The mayor contracted a private company to demolish the QUANTITY houses . A municipal company was tasked with ensuring that the necessary conditions for the demolition were in place . Representatives of the municipality were instructed to be present during the demolition and the police were asked to send officers to ensure that public order was observed .

On DATE , demolition works started on CARDINAL of the QUANTITY houses mentioned above . Following an intervention by the association , the municipality orally granted a DATE postponement for the demolition in order to find alternative housing for the applicants . They also announced on the radio that alternative accommodation would be found , especially for the children , as it was DATE . Press reports described how some of the GPE inhabitants had positioned themselves on the roofs of the houses to prevent demolition .

On DATE , without alternative accommodation having been found , the council proceeded with the demolition , with the police entering the houses at TIME The applicants were evicted by the police with the help of a private security firm . According to the applicants , disputed by the Government , the police destroyed household items with clubs and poured water over the burning stove . All the applicants were ordered to go out into the street . A record , signed DATE by a police officer who was present during the demolition , stated that “ on DATE , between TIME , teams of police officers from ORG assisted the municipality with the demolition of the buildings at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Borimechkata Street . No disturbance was observed during the demolition . ” Another record drawn up by municipal officials on DATE indicated that at TIME both houses were free of items and ready to be demolished .

NORP The parties dispute whether PERSON , aged DATE at the time of the events , was among those evicted . He was the youngest child of the PERSON family ( applicants CARDINAL to twentythree ) ; his birth certificate indicated that he was born on DATE and lived at CARDINAL Borimechkata Street , GPE .

According to the applicants , the officials present , including the mayor of GPE , made insulting remarks to them , such as “ Take that back home ” and “ You are too dirty , go take a shower and then come back ” . In addition , the children witnessed their homes being destroyed and their GPE distress .

The PERSON family ( applicants CARDINAL ) moved into another municipal dwelling situated at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street , to which they were directed by the borough authorities after the demolition on DATE . They were left in the street for TIME before this accommodation was made available . The CARDINAL members of the family were accommodated in CARDINAL room in which they lived until DATE , at some point in time with an additional baby . DATE after they moved in the roof collapsed in the PERSON family room . They patched it up themselves but the roof continued to leak .

The PERSON family ( applicants CARDINAL ) were not directed promptly to alternative housing . At TIME on DATE , the eighteenth applicant , PERSON , concerned about the situation of her new - born baby , enquired with the borough authorities where her family could move . The borough authorities directed them to the dwelling at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street . The PERSON family was only able to move there at TIME that day . In the meantime they were left in the street for TIME . They took shelter under a block of flats , where they had to change the baby ’s nappies and clean their children in the open . They were finally accommodated in CARDINAL room of the house at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street . At that point , CARDINAL members of the family occupied the same room .

The PERSON family ( applicants CARDINAL to seventeen ) moved into a makeshift house at CARDINAL PERSON Street which they put together out of wooden blocks and cardboard collected from a rubbish dump . The house did not have a toilet and its inhabitants used an area behind the house for this purpose . There was no running water so they washed in the sea . A certificate provided by the municipal authorities indicated that in DATE the ninth applicant was listed as an occupant of the house together with the rest of the PERSON family .

The building at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street was a single - storey house with a total of CARDINAL rooms . On DATE , the third room was uninhabitable . The PERSON family made the room habitable so that CARDINAL people could live in it , while CARDINAL others ( applicants DATE to CARDINAL ) lived in the room to which they originally moved . When the PERSON and PERSON families moved into the house , there was no electricity supply and no hot water . The only toilet was an external one which was extremely dilapidated and there was no place to shower or bath . There was CARDINAL sink . The applicants attached photographs of the house to their application .

On DATE the first and the eighteenth applicants signed typed - up declarations provided by the municipality , stating that they were aware that the dwelling which they occupied at the time , the house at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street , GPE , was in a state of disrepair and posed a danger to the life and limb of its occupants , and that they undertook to inform the people living with them at that address accordingly .

NORP The mayor of GPE ordered on DATE that the house the PERSON family occupied be demolished as it posed a danger to human occupation . On DATE the municipal authorities proposed to the sixth applicant , PERSON , to move with his minor children and his wife to a small municipal apartment on the CARDINALth floor of a block of flats . Following hesitations expressed by him , the authorities allegedly informed him that if he refused the offer , something he effectively did , more appropriate housing would be offered to his family . This did not happen .

On DATE the mayor of GPE ordered the eviction of the first , third , DATE , twentieth , CARDINAL and twentythird applicants from CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street , on the ground that they occupied it unlawfully . On DATE the mayor ordered that the PERSON family , plus a baby born on DATE to the eighteenth applicant , be allocated subsidised municipal housing . This order was enforced on DATE when the applicants moved into a flat of QUANTITY squared .

The PERSON family was not proposed any shelter after their eviction ordered in DATE . While officially still registered at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street , they rented a room in a house at FAC where they were living at the time of their last communication with the ORG .

At TIME on DATE , the eighteenth applicant , the mother of PERSON , had called an ambulance as the child was not breathing . PERSON PERSON , aged DATE and DATE , was declared dead by the emergency doctor . A hospital record announcing his death listed CARDINAL Borimechkata Street as his permanent address and another address in GPE as his current address . The same CARDINAL addresses had been indicated on the hospital record announcing his birth .

A preliminary criminal investigation against an unknown perpetrator was immediately opened into his death . A number of investigative measures were carried out . Those included an examination of the dwelling where the child had died and the creation of an album of pictures of the child in his cot , interrogation of the mother , as well as a forensic medical expertise , which comprised an autopsy of the infant ’s body . The mother was provided with an ex officio lawyer .

NORP The prosecutor terminated proceedings on DATE for absence of a crime as the authorities considered that the child had died of natural causes . The death certificate indicated the cause of death as bilateral pneumonia and acute respiratory and cardiac failure . It listed the child ’s address as CARDINAL Borimechkata Street , GPE . The child ’s mother , DATE applicant , who was provided with legal assistance , did not make of her own motion any explicit complaint before the investigating authorities . Nor did she challenge the termination of the preliminary investigation .

On DATE , the chairman of the association brought an application before ORG , entitled “ complaint ” , against GPE municipality . In it he complained of “ drastic consequences ” endured by the inhabitants of a number of dwellings following their eviction from those dwellings and the latter ’s demolition . He claimed that those consequences included the death of CARDINAL child and the severe psychological traumatism of several other children . He referred to evictions and demolitions carried out by the municipality since DATE on CARDINAL different streets , among which FAC , from which the individual applicants in the present case had been evicted .

He emphasised , without further detail and without listing the names of the individual applicants , that the actions of the municipality breached the affected ORG human rights . He submitted that , while those persons would bring proceedings before ORG , that process would take too long and the families under threat of being evicted at that time risked being left in the street without shelter during DATE . He asked the court to order the municipality to provide shelter to the people facing eviction or to halt the planned eviction until shelter was secured .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that the application did not meet the requirements of LAW ( “ the LAW ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that it was necessary for the representative of the association to correct the irregularities in it . More specifically , the court order stated that he had to clarify the object of his application . If it was a complaint against an individual administrative act then he needed to specify the act , the body which had issued it and in what way the act was unlawful . Similarly , if he was complaining about actions or omissions on the part of an administrative body , then those had to be specified , together with their alleged unlawfulness . Further , it was necessary to indicate what he was asking of the court : the quashing of an unlawful administrative act or the discontinuation of actions or omissions by an administrative body . If he was asking for the latter , then he had to state whether those actions were carried out on the basis of an administrative act , or whether they were carried out without a lawful basis . He further had to provide proof of a paid state fee ( of CARDINAL ORG ) , as well as of the existence of the association and of its valid representation . The court suspended the case so that the association ’s representative could comply with the above instructions .

On DATE the association ’s representative filed a submission entitled “ clarifying application ” in response to ORG order of DATE . It indicated that it was brought by PERSON , acting as a head and representative of association “ PERSON ” . The modified application specified that it was a complaint representing , on the one hand , a challenge to the implementation by GPE municipality of the ordinance on people ’s housing needs . On the other hand , the complaint was a challenge to the authorities’ actions and omissions relating to the eviction of the individual applicants in DATE from CARDINAL Borimechkata Street in GPE and the authorities’ continued failure thereafter to provide the evicted GPE people with adequate shelter . He identified the authorities in question as FAC municipal council officials , the ORG social assistance directorate , police officials and the private security firm ’s staff hired by the municipality to assist during the above - mentioned eviction and demolition . He further complained about the inaction of the social assistance department which , despite having been repeatedly informed by the association of the children ’s imminent eviction in DATE , had contented themselves with the drawing up of a report concluding that it was beyond their mandate to act .

The association ’s representative further listed the names of the individual members of the GPE families who he claimed had suffered damage as a result of the LOC actions and inactions . The latter were enumerated as follows : the forced removal of the named individuals from their dwellings by the police ; the humiliating treatment of the former by authorities involved in the eviction and demolition ; the selective demolition of dwellings occupied by GPE only ; forcing a DATE baby to spend DATE in his cot in the open in the street , as a result of which he had died DATE from double - sided pneumonia ; psychological harassment of the children from the demolished homes and failure to provide them with psychological support for the shock of witnessing their homes being destroyed and the helplessness of their parents ; subsequent housing of the GPE families in conditions unsuitable for human occupation ; unfair and discriminatory treatment during DATE of GPE in need of social housing including the families listed ; and discriminatory treatment on the basis of people ’s social status in the distribution of municipal dwellings . The association ’s representative stated that those actions and inactions had breached ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) , the human rights and freedoms provided for in ORG and , in particular , ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE .

He asked the court to order the municipality to audit its municipal housing policy as regards the ethnicity and social status of the people given municipal dwellings . In addition , he asked the court to compel the municipality to provide normal living conditions to the applicant families . He also asked the court to order the municipality to pay just compensation to them for the humiliating living conditions in which they had been forced to live after the eviction and demolition , as well as for having discriminated against them as regards the provision of housing . He also sought compensation for the family of the dead child , PERSON , and for all CARDINAL families for the insufficient protection provided to the children during the demolition and thereafter . He sought costs and expenses and submitted proof of payment of the state tax due and of the existence of the association . He also listed the written items of evidence which he submitted together with his application .

ORG examined the clarified application on DATE . The court found , in the first place , that this application had made it clear that the complaint was against the actions and inactions of municipal officials from GPE municipality , of police officers and private contractors at the time of the demolition of dwellings in DATE . The court further concluded that the complaint was against the inaction of the social assistance department for having refused to draw up a report on the living conditions of the children in the PERSON family during the said period . It then observed that the association was seeking , on behalf of CARDINAL families , pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages stemming from the actions and omissions of the municipal administration in relation with the demolition of the municipal houses in which those families had been living and damages for placing those individuals in inappropriate municipal dwellings .

The court noted that the aforementioned actions and omissions had been presented as being unlawful and in breach of ORG , the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the ORG .

ORG decided that it had not been seized with a complaint against a specific individual administrative act under Article CARDINAL § DATE , nor with a proper complaint against specific actions or omissions under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , or with a proper claim for damages under the ORG and ORG DATE ( hereafter “ the ORG ” , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In particular , neither in the initial application of DATE nor in the clarified application thereafter had the association representative specified an individual administrative act against which judicial review proceedings could be brought . Even assuming that this act was the eviction and demolition order in respect of the dwelling at CARDINAL FAC , the association was not a party to , or personally affected by , that order and the DATE statutory period for judicial review of such orders had long expired . Furthermore , the claim against the administrative actions or omissions under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW was likewise out of time , given that the authorities’ actions complained of had taken place in DATE . The court further noted that a claim under LAW ORG was inadmissible due to the lack of standing of the association and because such a claim would require a prior declaration of illegality in accordance with LAW . The court declared the application inadmissible .

Apart from the restating the complaint made by the association that the actions and omissions in question had been unlawful and in breach of the ORG , among other legal instruments ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , at no point in its decision did ORG refer to the ORG – the legislative act to which the association had made explicit reference DATE , examine the procedural regularity or irregularity of the application from the perspective of the ORG or explain why , for all or any of the association ’s complaints made in it , the ORG could not constitute an effective remedy .

On DATE , in the context of a cassation review , the ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision in its entirety .

It found that the application before it was admissible as submitted within the statutory limitation period . However , it was not well - founded . In particular , the lower court had correctly established that it had not referred to a specific administrative act under LAW . Neither had it pointed out specific actions or omissions LAW . Given that from the applicant association ’s submissions it had been clear that the events complained of had taken place in DATE , it was indisputable that the statutory limitation period had lapsed , which in turn was an additional ground for not examining the application on its merits . Finally , the applicants had not made a valid claim for compensation under section CARDINAL of the ORG , given that they had failed to specify the concrete acts , actions and omissions in connection with which compensation was being sought , or its amount . The ORG did not address the applicability of the ORG either .

Individuals can seek protection against actions and omissions of administrative bodies under LAW of LAW . LAW stipulates that everyone with a legal interest can bring a claim before the administrative court , seeking the discontinuation by an administrative body of an action not based on an administrative act or in the law .

According to LAW an administrative act may be contested before a court within DATE of its communication .

All claims for damages stemming from unlawful acts , actions or omissions by public bodies or officials are heard at first instance by the competent administrative court ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

According to LAW , judicial review of an individual administrative act has to be lodged in writing and must indicate , inter alia , the court , personal and contact data of the applicant , the administrative act which is contested and the essence of the request . The administrative court may collect evidence admissible under LAW Procedure DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and it assists the parties in proceedings before it to correct formal errors and lack of clarity in their submissions ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

If an irregular application has been made challenging an individual administrative act before a court , the court specifies the irregularity and invites the party to correct it and resubmit the application ( LAW . Thus , in CARDINAL decisions , ORG , referring to the latter provision , returned an application twice to the claimant , indicating each time its irregularities and how to correct them ( see опр. на адм. съд ORG град от CARDINAL и CARDINAL по адм. д. № DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG provides that the ORG and , as of DATE , the municipalities are liable for damage caused to individuals and legal entities as a result of unlawful decisions , acts or omissions by their own authorities or officials while discharging administrative duties . Pursuant to LAW , the lawfulness of administrative actions or omissions is established by the court in the context of the same proceedings for damages .

Persons seeking redress for damage resulting from acts or omissions falling within the scope of the ORG have no claim under general tort law as the ORG is a lex specialis and excludes the application of the general regime ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG ; see also реш. от DATE г. по гр.д. № CARDINAL г. на ORG , ORG , ІVб отд. , as well as реш. № DATE г. от CARDINAL декември DATE г. , по PERSON № DATE г. на ВС GPE г.о. , referred to in , among others , the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW bans discrimination on the grounds of race , national origin , ethnicity , sex , religion , education , conviction , political affiliation , personal or public status and property status .

The ORG , which was adopted in DATE and came into force on DATE , transposes ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of DATE implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin ( ORG , p. CARDINAL ) and Council Directive CARDINAL of DATE establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation ( ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .

It prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex , race , national origin , ethnicity , human genome , nationality , origin , religion or faith , education , beliefs , political affiliation , personal or public status , disability , age , sexual orientation , family status , property status , or any other ground provided for by law or an international treaty to which GPE is a party . The LAW also defines racial segregation , explicitly providing that it is a form of discrimination .

The ORG is a lex specialis in relation to general administrative and civil law .

Section CARDINAL provides for the shifting of the burden of proof in discrimination cases . Under that section , where a claimant is able to prove facts from which an inference may be drawn that there has been discriminatory treatment , it is incumbent on the defendant to prove that there has not been a violation of the right to equal treatment .

A complainant may first file a complaint with ORG ( section CARDINAL of the ORG ) or instead bring an action directly in court ( section CARDINAL of the ORG ) .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG , every individual who considers himself or herself to be a victim of discrimination can bring a claim before the first - instance civil court , seeking in particular to establish that he or she has been discriminated against , that the defendant be made to discontinue the discriminatory treatment and to refrain for the future from it , and that compensation be paid to the victim .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG entitles non - governmental organisations to bring claims on behalf of victims complaining of discriminatory treatment and seek compensation on their behalf . LAW ) of the ORG authorises non - governmental organisations to bring such proceedings in their own name when a high number of individuals is concerned . In such cases the compensation sought by the non - governmental organisation is in the interest of the individuals allegedly discriminated .

Domestic judicial practice on the question which courts have competence to hear discrimination claims under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG has varied considerably in the past . An interpretative decision of a joint bench of judges from the SCC and ORG decided on DATE that the administrative , and not civil , courts were competent to hear discrimination claims against public bodies or officials under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG . This decision put an end to the lack of clarity regarding which courts DATE civil or administrative – were competent to hear such claims .


Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention .


Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The tax inspector conducted a tax inspection of the applicant ’s attorney ’s office in DATE .

On DATE the tax authorities considered that the applicant had received disguised dividends from his company during DATE . The amounts of the disguised dividends were the following : MONEY ( ORG ) , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Additional taxes and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skatteförhöjning ) were imposed in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL respectively .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s requests . It found that the applicant had given incomplete information to taxation authorities and tax had therefore been incompletely or partially levied . Therefore the additional tax and the tax surcharges imposed on him were not considered to be too high .

By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on the same grounds as ORG .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant on , inter alia , CARDINAL counts of embezzlement and CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud ( törkeä veropetos , grovt skattebedrägeri ) concerning DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as , in his personal capacity , he had underdeclared his income . The undeclared income amounted in total to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and , consequently , the tax imposed had been LAW too low .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the applicant , inter alia , on CARDINAL counts of embezzlement and CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced him to a prison sentence of DATE and DATE . He was also ordered to pay the taxation authority ORG CARDINAL plus interest .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting that the charges be dismissed . He claimed , inter alia , that CARDINAL of the embezzlement charges was statute - barred .

On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing on CARDINAL and DATE , convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and DATE in prison . It upheld ORG judgment in respect of the compensation award . The court found that CARDINAL of the embezzlement charges was not statutebarred . As concerned the aggravated tax fraud in the applicant ’s personal taxation , the court noted that tax surcharges had been imposed on the applicant and that the taxation proceedings had become final on DATE . As the charges had been brought on DATE , that was , before the taxation proceedings had become final , there were no obstacles to examining the charge concerning aggravated tax fraud .

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , requesting that the charges be dismissed . He claimed that there had been a lack of a fair trial and a violation of the legality principle in respect of the embezzlement charges as he had been convicted of something other than the charges against him and the conviction had been based on a wrong GPE Code provision . Also CARDINAL of the changes had been statute - barred . As concerned the tax fraud charges , he claimed that the ne bis in idem principle had been violated when he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud in respect of his personal taxation . That principle and the legality principle had also been violated when he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and bookkeeping crime as a representative of the company as the undeclared income was the same as in his personal taxation . He also claimed that there had been a lack of a fair trial before ORG as he was not allowed to obtain detailed information about the charges and to put questions to CARDINAL of the witnesses .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant lodged an application for an extraordinary appeal with ORG , requesting , inter alia , that the execution of the prison sentence be stayed . He repeated this request on DATE , and on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to grant a stay of execution .

On DATE the applicant started serving his sentence .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for the reopening of the case .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant lodged a new extraordinary appeal with ORG concerning its decision of CARDINAL DATE . He referred , inter alia , to LAW and the lack of a fair trial .

It is not known whether the case is still pending before ORG .

By letters dated CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the Chancellor of ORG ( oikeuskansleri , justitiekanslern ) , asking him to examine whether ORG justices had acted in accordance with the law and their duties when rendering the decision of DATE .

On DATE the Chancellor of ORG informed the applicant that he was not going to investigate the matter as it was still pending before ORG . However , he indicated that the general interpretation was that the duty to give reasons did not apply to decisions concerning leave to appeal or extraordinary remedies .

By letter dated DATE the applicant asked the Chancellor of Justice to re - examine the matter and to take action in order to have the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE re - opened .

It is not known whether the case is still pending before the Chancellor of ORG .


CASE OF ABUBAKAROVA AND MIDALISHOVA v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in the village of LOC in GPE . The first applicant is the wife of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The second applicant is the wife of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .

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

At TIME brothers PERSON and PERSON and their nephew Mr A.El . were travelling in a GAZ-CARDINAL ( “ NORP ” ) vehicle on the road leading from the PERSON settlement to the village of ORG in GPE .

At TIME a convoy of CARDINAL IFVs ( БМП-CARDINAL ) was passing along the road . The applicants’ relatives drove to the side to let the IFVs pass . The NORP and a number of other cars were at the side of the road when CARDINAL of the IVFs suddenly turned and drove over the LOC , and then drove off in the direction of PERSON . All CARDINAL passengers died on the spot . A number of residents of ORG witnessed the incident .

On DATE Sh . , an operational search officer from the PERSON department of the interior ( Районный отдел внутренних дел ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter “ the ROVD ” ) , reported the incident to the head of the police station , stating that a NORP had been driven over by an IFV carrying military servicemen .

The police questioned PERSON He stated that his brothers PERSON and PERSON and nephew PERSON A.El . had been driving home from a funeral when their vehicle had been driven over by an IFV carrying military servicemen , who had fled the scene and gone to the military base in GPE .

The police also questioned PERSON , who stated that he had been driving to PERSON when he had seen a convoy of IFVs on the road and a NORP on the kerb letting it pass by . CARDINAL of the IFVs had suddenly turned in the direction of the LOC , driving over it and killing all CARDINAL passengers . It had then gone through the checkpoint in PERSON . The witness and others present during the incident had immediately driven to the police station to report it .

NORP The police examined the NORP , which had been left at the crime scene . Traces of blood and brain matter were found inside the damaged vehicle . No evidence was collected .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation into the accident under LAW of LAW ( breach of traffic regulations , causing death by negligence ) . The case file was given the number DATE .

It also ordered a post - mortem examination of GPE , PERSON and Mr A.El . On DATE the experts concluded that their deaths had occurred as a result of the accident .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr GPE and Mr GPE , both of whom stated that on DATE they had been driving a GAZ-CARDINAL vehicle when they had seen CARDINAL IFVs , CARDINAL of which had had the serial number CARDINAL , violating traffic rules . It had driven over a NORP car and then left in the direction of PERSON . They had immediately gone to the damaged vehicle and found CARDINAL people dead inside .

On DATE the investigators sent a request to military unit no . CARDINAL to be provided information on the provenance of IFV no . CARDINAL . No reply was given to that or any subsequent requests sent by the investigators .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor ordered the investigators to take a number of steps , including questioning numerous eyewitnesses to the incident such as local residents and the law - enforcement officers who had been manning the checkpoints through which the IFVs had passed to flee the scene .

On DATE the investigators questioned the head of the local administration , PERSON . NORP who stated , amongst other things , that he had learnt of the incident shortly after it had happened . He had immediately gone to each of the checkpoints on the road between PERSON and PERSON - Yurt . At the checkpoint manned by police officers from the ORG district police station he had been told that , TIME prior to his arrival , QUANTITY IFVs had passed through and driven in the direction of GPE , where the main military base of the federal forces was situated . He had gone to the military prosecutor ’s office in GPE , where he had been told that an investigator had already gone to the scene and established that CARDINAL of the IFVs had had the serial numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; that after the IFV had driven over the GPE , a serviceman had got out of CARDINAL of the IFVs and checked that the car ’s passengers were dead . The IFVs had then driven off . The witness also stated that on CARDINAL or DATE Mr ORG , who had worked as a driver at the FAC military base , had told him that at TIME on DATE he had seen CARDINAL IFVs of the CARDINALth regiment driving at high speed into the base .

On DATE the investigation was suspended on the grounds that the perpetrators had not been identified . The applicants were not informed .

On DATE the ROVD replied to the applicants’ request for information , stating that the investigation had established that that at TIME on DATE an unidentified person driving an IFV had had a collision with a LOC being driven by GPE and in which PERSON had been a passenger . As a result of the accident , the driver and CARDINAL passengers had died on the spot . The driver of the IFV had fled the scene . The document also stated that the material concerning the accident had been sent to the GPE military prosecutor ’s office .

On an unspecified date prior to DATE the investigation was resumed . The applicants were not informed .

On an unspecified date DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicants were not informed .

On DATE the deputy district prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the proceedings as unlawful and ordered that the investigation be resumed and the investigators take a number of steps , including identifying the owners of IFV nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL and carrying out the orders of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicants were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .

On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of residents of ORG , all of whom stated that they had arrived at the scene shortly after the incident and that , according to eyewitnesses , the PERSON had been driven over by a military IFV .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr DATE , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had seen a military convoy on the road between PERSON and PERSON - Yurt and a GPE at the side of the road letting the convoy pass by . CARDINAL of the IFVs had suddenly driven off the road and over the LOC . The ORG had then left in the direction of GPE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE allowed the ORG complaint against the decision to suspend the investigation . The court stated that between the opening of the investigation on DATE and its suspension on DATE the investigators had failed to take the necessary steps to identify the perpetrators , limiting themselves to sending CARDINAL unspecified requests for information to the military authorities , even though it was clear from the case material that after causing the accident the IFVs had entered the LOC military base . Despite the supervising prosecutor ’s instructions given on DATE , the investigators had only resent CARDINAL requests for information to the military authorities and had again suspended the investigation on DATE , as they had received no reply . The court overruled that decision and instructed that the proceedings be resumed .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor resumed the investigation , deciding that it had been suspended unlawfully . The investigators were ordered to take a number of steps , including sending new requests to the military authorities concerning the possible provenance of IFV nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

On unspecified dates in DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL residents of ORG , both of whom stated that they had learnt of the incident from their fellow villagers .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again . On an unspecified date prior to DATE the case was transferred to ORG . The proceedings are still pending .

The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants .

At the ORG ’s request , the ORG furnished copies of the entire investigation file in criminal case no . DATE , running to CARDINAL pages .


CASE OF KURILOVICH AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

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

The first applicant came to GPE in DATE . In DATE he was granted long - term resident status , and in DATE permanent resident status . In DATE he married the second applicant , and in DATE the third applicant , their son , was born .

On DATE the head of ORG issued an order withdrawing the first applicant ’s residence permit , ordering his expulsion and imposing a DATE ban on his reentering GPE on the ground that his presence in the country represented a “ serious threat to national security ” . Factual grounds justifying the order were not indicated ; it was merely noted that it was based on “ proposal no . BCARDINAL ” .

NORP That proposal , drawn up by ORG on DATE and initially classified , was declassified in DATE and has been submitted by the Government . It stated that the first applicant was a member of a “ NORP criminal group ” implicated in money laundering , extortion , smuggling , illegal arms deals and the financing of “ terrorist groups ” on the territory of GPE . It said further that the first applicant had lowered GPE ’s international reputation , by “ implicating the country in the financing of terrorist organisations , transnational criminality , corruption and drug trafficking ” . No evidence was provided to substantiate those claims .

On DATE the first applicant applied for judicial review of the order of CARDINAL DATE . He denied the allegations against him and stated that his family resided in GPE and that the measures against him breached his Convention rights . In addition , he presented a certificate that he had no criminal convictions in GPE .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application for judicial review and held that the CARDINAL DATE order was lawful . After summarising the allegations made in proposal no . BCARDINAL , it held merely that they were sufficient to justify a conclusion that the first applicant represented a threat to national security . Furthermore , it dismissed his arguments relating to his family life , considering that

“ any restriction of the rights under the ORG is justified [ when based ] on national security considerations , in cases where foreign ORG behaviour threatens the national security and the public order of the State where they reside . ”

The first applicant was expelled on DATE . It is unclear whether the second and third applicants remained in GPE after that . In DATE the first and second applicants had another child .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

András Sajó;David Scicluna;Egidijus Kūris;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

ORG The applicant had a NORP tourist visa , which had been issued in DATE and had been valid for DATE . Having overstayed this visa , he remained in GPE illegally .

In DATE , when the applicant was DATE and still living in GPE illegally , he met MP , a NORP citizen , who at the time was DATE . DATE , on DATE , they married in a civil ceremony . On DATE they also married in accordance with the NORP rite .

On DATE the applicant enquired about his “ exempt person status ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and on DATE started the process to obtain NORP citizenship on the basis of his marriage to a NORP national .

The applicant ’s exempt person status was confirmed on DATE . On DATE , following the processing of his application and consequent to the marriage , he was registered as a NORP citizen . On DATE , he therefore lodged an application to renounce his NORP nationality ( a copy of the relevant application form has not been submitted to ORG ) . It transpires from a letter issued by LOC in GPE that on DATE the applicant ’s request was approved and his NORP passport withdrawn . At the relevant time , dual nationality was not possible under either NORP or NORP law .

According to the Government , in DATE the applicant and MP had various marital problems , which led the applicant to leave the matrimonial home on CARDINAL occasions . The applicant had behaved aggressively , and specifically on DATE he had physically assaulted his pregnant wife , causing her a permanent disability . MP left the matrimonial home thereafter .

NORP The applicant was charged , remanded in custody , and eventually tried and found guilty in respect of the act of assault . He was given a suspended sentence .

In the meantime , on DATE a child , ORG , was born of the marriage . ORG is a NORP citizen . The various family disputes continued between the couple .

On DATE MP instituted court proceedings to annul the marriage . Following adversarial proceedings where both parties were represented by a lawyer , the applicant ’s marriage was annulled by a judgment of DATE . The court delivering the judgment was satisfied ( to the degree necessary in civil proceedings , namely on a balance of probabilities ) that the applicant ’s only reason for marrying had been to remain in GPE and acquire citizenship ; thus he was positively excluding marriage itself , and there had been a simulation of marriage . Since no appeal was lodged against the judgment , it became final .

The applicant did not inform the authorities of the judgment concerning the annulment of his marriage and he remained resident in GPE and retained his NORP citizenship .

On DATE the applicant married GPE , a NORP citizen , DATE after their first encounter . The applicant enquired about the exempt person status of his NORP wife and was asked to produce a copy of the judgment of annulment . On DATE the applicant produced a copy of the judgment and it was only at that time that the authorities became aware of the reason for the annulment of his first marriage .

Following an application to that effect , on DATE , GPE was granted exempt person status and thus had full freedom of movement ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . According to the Government , although this was contested by the applicant , attention was drawn to the fact that the benefit of such status would cease if the applicant lost his citizenship . CARDINAL sons were born of this marriage , ORG , in DATE and DATE respectively . They are both NORP citizens .

On DATE the applicant was informed that an order was to be made to deprive him of his NORP citizenship ( under Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ LAW ” ) DATE see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) , which , according to the judgment of DATE , appeared to have been obtained by fraud . He was informed of his right to an inquiry .

The applicant challenged that decision , claiming that it was not true that he had obtained his marriage by fraud and stressing that he had CARDINAL NORP children .

In consequence , proceedings were instituted to investigate the applicant ’s situation and if necessary divest him of his NORP citizenship . A committee was set up for this purpose in accordance with LAW . A number of hearings were held before the committee where the applicant was assisted by a lawyer . He was allowed to make oral and written submissions and submit evidence , including witness testimony . It appears from the documents available that the applicant contested the basis of the annulment decision and claimed that he had not been aware that he could have appealed against it . He also contested the findings of a court of criminal jurisdiction that had found him guilty of injuring his wife and causing her a permanent disability .

NORP The applicant ’s ex - wife , a citizenship department official and a priest also gave testimony .

The committee ’s final recommendation to the Minister of ORG and ORG was not made available to the applicant . Requests by the applicant ’s lawyer for a copy of the acts of those proceedings remained unsatisfied .

On DATE the Minister ordered that the applicant be deprived of his citizenship with immediate effect , in accordance with Article CARDINAL ) of the Act .

By a letter dated DATE from the Director of ORG , the applicant was informed that the Minister of Justice and ORG had concluded that the applicant had obtained citizenship by fraudulent means and that therefore on DATE , in accordance with LAW , the Minister had ordered that he be immediately divested of his citizenship . He was required to return his certificate of registration as a NORP citizen and his passport .

The applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings , complaining under Articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Convention . He claimed that he had not had a fair trial and appropriate access to court for the determination on his right to citizenship . Moreover , the revocation of his citizenship had not been in accordance with the law . The prerequisites for such action had not existed as his first marriage had not been one of convenience .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction rejected the applicant ’s complaint under LAW , finding that the committee set up for that purpose had not been a tribunal , but solely an investigative body capable of giving recommendations but not making final decisions . The court , however , found that the applicant ’s LAW rights would be breached if , as a result of his being divested of his citizenship , he became an alien . His de jure family ( in respect of the second marriage ) would suffer irremediable upset if , as a father ( of the CARDINAL NORP children of that marriage ) , he were required to move to another country . Thus , the revocation of citizenship in the present case was in breach of LAW . Consequently , the court annulled the order of CARDINAL DATE and considered that it was not necessary to rule on any further complaints .

On appeal , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG overturned the first - instance judgment in part . It rejected LAW CARDINAL complaint on the basis that the provision was not applicable in the absence of a civil right . In that connection , it rejected the applicant ’s contention that the revocation of citizenship affected his right to a family life and therefore was civil in nature , as citizenship was a matter of public law and fell under the prerogatives of the ORG . It also reversed the part of the judgment in respect of DATE , commenting that it had not been established that the applicant had a family life in GPE , and , even if this were so , the revocation of his citizenship would not necessarily result in his having to leave GPE . Indeed , it had not transpired that the applicant would be denied NORP residence or that he had applied for it and had been refused , nor had a removal order been issued .

Following the lodging of the application with the ORG , on DATE the applicant ’s lawyer wrote to the relevant authorities informing them that the case was pending before the ORG and that therefore no action should be taken on the basis of the order of CARDINAL DATE . No feedback , apart from an acknowledgment of receipt , was received concerning that letter . However , although the order to deprive the applicant of his citizenship with immediate effect remains in force , no action has been taken to date in pursuit of the order and no removal order has been issued .

Although the applicant considers that the implementation of the order is only a matter of time , he is currently still residing and carrying out his business in GPE . He has a trading licence , which is periodically renewed . He continued using a NORP passport to travel until DATE , when it expired , as he had failed to return it to the authorities despite their request .

The applicant does not appear to have any contact with his first son , but claims to be in a family environment with his second wife and their children . Following the revocation of his citizenship , the applicant ’s second wife lost her exempt person status and the attached freedom - of - movement rights .