CASE OF ALIŠIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, SERBIA, SLOVENIA AND "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (Serbia);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (Slovenia);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Croatia) (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Serbia);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Slovenia);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Croatia) (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures) (Serbia);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures) (Slovenia);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Lech Garlicki;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Ksenija Turković

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

Prior to the dissolution of ORG ) , CARDINAL of the present applicants , PERSON and PERSON PERSON , had deposited foreign currency in GPE . In DATE , within the context of the economic reforms carried out in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , GPE became a branch of GPE , a NORP bank . Also prior to the dissolution of the SFRY , the third applicant , PERSON , had deposited foreign currency in the ORG branch , located in GPE , of GPE , a NORP bank . According to the material in the ORG ’s possession , on DATE the balance in PERSON and PERSON PERSON ’s accounts at the GPE branch of ORG was MONEY ( ORG ) and ORG CARDINAL respectively ; on DATE the balance in PERSON accounts at the ORG branch of ORG was DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL , CARDINAL NORP schillings and CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) .

NORP The applicants’ complaints under the Convention concern their inability to withdraw their foreign - currency savings from the bank accounts described above . In their submission , this constituted a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL taken alone and in conjunction with LAW by all of the respondent States . They also alleged a violation of LAW .

NORP Before the economic reforms that were carried out in the SFRY in DATE , its commercial banking system consisted of basic and associated banks . Basic banks had separate legal personality , but were integrated into the organisational structure of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL associated banks . As a rule , basic banks were founded and controlled by socially owned companies based in the same territorial unit ( that is , in CARDINAL of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE DATE or ORG and GPE – of ORG ) . Socially owned companies were the flagship of the NORP model of self - management : neither private nor ORG - owned , they were a collective property controlled by their employees , based on a communist vision of industrial relations ( the phenomenon and the current status of such companies in GPE , where they continue to exist , has been described in NORP GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE and CARDINAL , DATE ) . CARDINAL or more basic banks could form an associated bank . PERSON , CARDINAL of the associated banks of the SFRY , was composed of GPE , at which CARDINAL of the present applicants had opened accounts , GPE , GPE and a number of other basic banks . Similarly , GPE , at which CARDINAL of the present applicants had opened accounts , had , together with some other basic banks , formed an associated bank called LOC udružena Banka .

In the SFRY there were also CARDINAL national banks , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and a national bank in each of the six Republics and CARDINAL ORG .

Being hard - pressed for hard currency , the SFRY made it attractive for its expatriates and other citizens to deposit foreign currency with its banks . Such deposits earned high interest , the DATE rate often exceeding PERCENT , and were guaranteed by the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON and Other Financial Institutions Act DATE ) .

The ORG guarantee was to be activated in case of a bank ’s bankruptcy or “ manifest insolvency ” at the request of the bank ( section CARDINAL of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Insolvency Act DATE and the relevant secondary legislation ) . None of the banks under consideration in the present case made such a request .

Savers could not request the activation of the guarantee of their own volition , but were entitled , in accordance with LAW DATE , to collect their deposits at any time , together with accrued interest . Section CARDINAL of that Act provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A contract for a monetary deposit shall be formed when the bank agrees to accept and the depositor agrees to deposit a certain sum of money in the bank .

( CARDINAL ) Under such a contract , the bank shall have the right to use the deposited money and the obligation to return it in accordance with the terms set out in the agreement . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW read as follows :

“ If a savings account is opened , the bank or financial institution shall issue the saver with a savings book . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Act provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) All deposits and withdrawals shall be recorded in a savings book .

( CARDINAL ) NORP Signed and stamped entries in savings books shall constitute proof of deposits and withdrawals .

( CARDINAL ) Any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void . ”

Furthermore , section CARDINAL of the LAW read as follows :

“ Interest shall be paid on savings deposits . ”

Beginning in DATE , the banks incurred foreignexchange losses because of depreciation of the dinar exchange rate . In response , the SFRY introduced a system for “ redepositing ” foreign currency , allowing banks to transfer ORG foreign - currency deposits to the ORG , which assumed the currency risk ( section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ) . Although the system was legally optional , in practice the banks did not have another option as they were not allowed to maintain foreign - currency accounts with foreign banks , which were necessary to make payments abroad , nor were they allowed to grant foreign - currency loans . Virtually all foreign currency was therefore redeposited with the ORG according to CARDINAL of the following CARDINAL methods : either the “ accounting ” or “ pro forma ” method , or the method of actual transfer of foreign currency to foreign accounts of the ORG . The accounting method was used far more often , as it enabled commercial banks to shift currency risks to the ORG without having to pay fees to foreign banks ( see NORP and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ; see also decision ORG CARDINAL of ORG DATE , § CARDINAL ) . According to an internal report of the ORG of DATE , by DATE an equivalent of MONEY had been redeposited with the ORG , of which only around ORG CARDINAL ( that is , slightly above PERCENT ) had been physically transferred to the ORG ’s many foreign accounts . It would appear that the funds in the ORG ’s foreign accounts have recently been divided among the successor GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

With regard to GPE , where the first CARDINAL applicants held their accounts , the redepositing scheme operated as follows . Pursuant to a series of agreements ( between GPE and GPE , ORG and ORG ) , GPE was to transfer DATE to ORG , for the account of PERSON , any difference between the foreign currency deposited and the foreign currency withdrawn . Some of those funds were transferred back to GPE at the request of that bank in order to meet its liquidity needs ( during periods when more foreign currency was withdrawn than deposited ) . Indeed , in the period from DATE to CARDINAL , DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL was transferred to GPE and DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( that is , PERCENT ) back to GPE . The funds which had not been transferred back to GPE were redeposited with the ORG according to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL methods described in paragraph CARDINAL above : the “ accounting ” or “ pro forma ” method ( in which case there is no proof that the funds actually left GPE ) , or the method of actual transfer of foreign currency to foreign accounts of the ORG . Regardless of the redepositing method used , all those funds were recorded as a claim of GPE against the ORG .

Under the agreements mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , GPE was granted dinar loans ( initially interest - free ) by the ORG , via ORG , in return for the value of the redeposited foreign currency . The dinars received by ORG were used by that basic bank to offer loans , at interest rates below the rate of inflation , to companies based , as a rule , in the same territorial unit .

NORP In DATE the redepositing system was stopped ( by an amendment to section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ) . Banks were given permission to open accounts with foreign banks . GPE , like other banks , seized that opportunity and deposited around ORG CARDINAL with foreign banks in the period from DATE to DATE . There is no information in the file as to what has happened to those funds .

Within the framework of the reforms carried out in DATE , the SFRY abolished the system of basic and associated banks described above . This shift in the banking regulations allowed some basic banks to opt for an independent status , while other basic banks became branches ( without legal personality ) of the former associated banks to which they had formerly belonged . On DATE Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo , mentioned above , thus became a branch ( without legal personality ) of GPE ; the latter assumed the former ’s rights , assets and liabilities . GPE , mentioned above , became an independent bank with its seat in GPE and a number of branches in GPE .

NORP Moreover , the convertibility of the dinar was declared , which led to a massive withdrawal of foreign currency . The SFRY therefore resorted to emergency measures restricting to a large extent withdrawals of foreign - currency deposits . For example , as of DATE , when the amendment to section CARDINAL of ORG DATE came into force , savers could withdraw their savings only to pay for imported goods or services for their own or their close relatives’ needs , to purchase foreign - currency bonds , to make testamentary gifts for scientific or humanitarian purposes , or to pay for life insurance with a local insurance company . In addition , section CARDINAL of the SFRY government ’s decision of DATE , which was in force until DATE , and section CARDINAL(c ) of the ORG ’s decision of DATE , which ORG declared unconstitutional in DATE , limited the amount that savers could withdraw or use for the above purposes to DEM CARDINAL per transaction , but not more than DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL per month ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The dissolution of the SFRY occurred in DATE . In the successor ORG , foreign - currency savings deposited prior to the dissolution were placed under a special regime and are commonly referred to as “ old ” or “ frozen ” foreign - currency savings . An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning such savings in each of the CARDINAL successor GPE is provided below . The successor ORG , which are also the respondent parties to the present case , are presented below in alphabetical order .

NORP In DATE GPE took over the statutory guarantee for “ old ” foreign - currency savings from ORG ( see section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) . Although the relevant statutory provisions were not clear in that regard , ORG held the view that the guarantee covered such savings in domestic banks only ( see report CARDINAL of ORG DATE ) .

Although all “ old ” foreign - currency savings remained frozen during the war , withdrawals were exceptionally allowed on humanitarian grounds and in some other special cases ( see the relevant secondary legislation ) .

After the DATE - CARDINAL war , each of ORG the ORG ” ) and ORG ) enacted its own legislation on “ old ” foreign - currency savings . Only the PERSON legislation is relevant in the present case , given that the branches in issue are situated in that Entity . In DATE the PERSON assumed liability for “ old ” foreign - currency savings in banks and branches situated in its territory ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE and ORG ) . Although such savings remained frozen , that Act provided that they could be used to purchase ORG - owned flats and companies ( see section CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL , as amended in DATE ) .

In DATE the PERSON enacted new legislation . It undertook to repay “ old ” foreign - currency savings in domestic banks in that Entity , regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned . Its liability for such savings in the branches of PERSON , GPE or other foreign banks , in which the applicants had their accounts , was expressly excluded pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG .

In DATE , liability for “ old ” foreign - currency savings in domestic banks passed from the Entities to the ORG . Liability for such savings at the local branches of ORG and GPE was again expressly excluded , but the ORG was to help the clients of those branches to obtain payment of their savings from GPE and GPE respectively ( see section QUANTITY of ORG DATE ) . In addition , all proceedings concerning “ old ” foreign - currency savings ceased by virtue of the same Act ( see section CARDINAL of that Act ; that provision was declared constitutional by decision U CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG DATE , § CARDINAL ) .

As stated in paragraph CARDINAL above , in DATE Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo became a branch , without legal personality , of GPE ; the latter assumed the former ’s rights , assets and liabilities . Pursuant to the companies register , the branch acted on behalf of and for the account of the parent bank . At DATE , the foreign - currency savings at that branch amounted to MONEY , but CARDINAL had been placed in its vault ( the flow of foreign currency between GPE and GPE is described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

A new bank , with the same name as the predecessor of the GPE branch of ORG Ljubljanska Banka GPE – was incorporated under the law of GPE in DATE . It assumed unilateral liability for “ old ” foreign - currency savings at the GPE branch of ORG , a NORP bank .

In DATE ORG GPE carried out an inspection of the new GPE and noted many shortcomings . First of all , the management of the new FAC had not been properly appointed and it was not clear who its shareholders were . ORG , for that reason , appointed a director of that bank . Secondly , as a domestic bank , GPE could not have assumed a foreign bank ’s liability for “ old ” foreign - currency savings , as this would impose new financial obligations on the State of GPE ( as the ORG was the statutory guarantor for “ old ” foreign - currency savings in all domestic banks ) . ORG ordered that a closing balance sheet for the GPE branch of ORG as at DATE be drawn up urgently and that its relations with the parent bank be defined .

However , according to the companies register , the newly founded ORG remained liable for “ old ” foreign - currency savings at ORG GPE branch until DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) . Consequently , it continued to administer “ old ” foreign - currency savings at ORG GPE branch ; PERCENT of those savings were used in the privatisation process in the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In CARDINAL case , a civil court ordered GPE to repay a client of ORG GPE branch ( see ORG v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The Constitutional Court of GPE described the DATE situation as “ chaotic ” ( decision ORG CARDINAL of DATE , § CARDINAL ) . ORG for GPE , a domestic human rights body , held that the legal uncertainty surrounding the issue of “ old ” foreign - currency savings in , inter alia , domestic branches of GPE and GPE during that period amounted to a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL ( see decision CH/CARDINAL/CARDINAL and others of DATE , § CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the ORG placed the domestic GPE under its provisional administration on the ground that it had undefined relations with GPE , a foreign bank located in GPE .

By virtue of an amendment to LAW , in DATE ORG extended the statutory time - limit for the deletion of wartime entries in the companies register until DATE . Shortly thereafter , in DATE , ORG decided that the domestic GPE was not the successor of the GPE branch of ORG ; that it was not liable for “ old ” foreign - currency savings in that branch ; and that , as a result , the DATE entry in the companies register stating otherwise ought to be deleted .

In DATE the domestic GPE sold its assets to a NORP company which , in return , undertook to pay the debts of that bank . At the same time , the premises of the GPE branch of ORG , under the administration of the PERSON government pending the final determination of the status of that branch , were let out to the same NORP company on behalf and for the account of PERSON .

In DATE the competent court opened bankruptcy proceedings against GPE in GPE . The proceedings are still pending .

The GPE branch of GPE has always had the status of a branch without legal personality . The balance of the “ old ” foreign - currency savings at that branch was MONEY ( MONEY ) as at DATE . The branch closed in DATE and has never resumed its activities . It is not clear what happened to its funds .

In DATE the competent court in GPE made a bankruptcy order against GPE . The NORP authorities then sold the premises of the ORG branches of ORG ( those in ORG had been sold in DATE ) . For example , for the sale of the premises in PERSON Street in GPE the NORP authorities obtained QUANTITY . The bankruptcy proceedings against ORG are apparently still pending .

NORP In DATE the ORG government decided to place the LOC and archives of the ORG branches of ORG under its administration . However , it would appear that ORG no longer had any LOC or archives in the PERSON .

In DATE , at the request of the ORG authorities , the NORP authorities opened a criminal investigation into the manner in which the archives of the GPE branch had been transferred to the NORP territory in DATE .

ORG stated that they had repaid “ old ” foreign - currency savings in domestic banks and their foreign branches , regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned . Indeed , it is clear that they repaid such savings of NORP - Herzegovinian citizens deposited in NORP - Herzegovinian branches of NORP banks . However , ORG provided the ORG with decisions of ORG ( PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL - DATE , PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL and PERSON DATE ) holding that the term used in the relevant legislation ( građanin ) meant a NORP citizen ( compare NORP and Others , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

GPE allowed its citizens to transfer their “ old ” foreign - currency savings from the GPE branch of GPE to NORP banks ( see section CARDINAL of ORG DATE and the relevant secondary legislation ) . Apparently , CARDINAL of all clients of that branch availed themselves of that possibility . In DATE GPE and GPE signed a memorandum of understanding , urging further succession negotiations regarding those transferred savings . As to the clients who did not transfer their savings from the GPE branch of GPE to NORP banks , which savings amounted to MONEY , some of them pursued civil proceedings in the NORP courts : CARDINAL of them obtained their “ old ” foreign - currency savings from a forced sale of assets of that branch located in GPE ( decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE ; see also NORP and Others , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ; while others have pursued or are currently pursuing civil proceedings in the NORP courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to official papers provided by ORG , PERSON and its GPE branch no longer have any assets in GPE .

After the dissolution of the SFRY , “ old ” foreigncurrency savings in NORP banks remained frozen . However , withdrawals were exceptionally allowed on humanitarian grounds regardless of the citizenship of the saver concerned and the location of the branch in issue ( see the relevant secondary legislation ) . Furthermore , the NORP courts ruled on CARDINAL occasion that the banks based in GPE were liable for “ old ” foreign - currency savings at their branches located in GPE ( see PERSON ( dec . ) , no . PERSON , DATE ) .

In DATE , and then again in DATE , GPE agreed to repay , partly in cash and partly in government bonds , “ old ” foreign - currency savings in domestic branches of domestic banks of its citizens and of citizens of all GPE other than the successor LAW of the SFRY together with “ old ” foreign - currency savings in foreign branches of domestic banks ( such as the ORG branch of GPE ) of citizens of all GPE other than the successor LAW of the SFRY . Those government bonds were to be amortised by DATE in CARDINAL DATE instalments and earned interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT ( section CARDINAL of ORG ) . As regards the amount to be repaid , GPE undertook to reimburse original deposits with interest accrued by DATE at the original rate and interest accrued after that date at an DATE rate of PERCENT ( section CARDINAL of the same Act ) .

However , other “ old ” foreign - currency savings ( that is , the savings of citizens of the SFRY successor States other than GPE deposited in all branches of NORP banks , both domestic and foreign , as well as the savings of NORP citizens in NORP branches located outside GPE ) were to remain frozen pending succession negotiations , as was the case for example of the third applicant ’s deposits . Furthermore , all proceedings concerning “ old ” foreign - currency savings ceased by virtue of sections DATE and CARDINAL of ORG Act DATE and sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG .

According to the companies register , ORG is ORG - owned . It is controlled by ORG . As a ORG - owned entity , it had to write off its large claims against State- and socially - owned companies in order to enable their privatisation pursuant to LAW DATE . In DATE the competent court made a bankruptcy order against GPE . The bankruptcy proceedings are pending . CARDINAL of savers at NORP - Herzegovinian branches of ORG unsuccessfully applied to be paid back within the context of the bankruptcy proceedings . CARDINAL of them then pursued civil proceedings against GPE , but to no avail .

In DATE GPE assumed the statutory guarantee from the SFRY for “ old ” foreign - currency savings in domestic branches of all banks ( including GPE and other foreign banks ) , regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned ( see section ORG ) of the DATE LAW on LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE – “ the DATE LAW ” ) , and converted the LOC liabilities towards depositors into public debt ( see ORG DATE ) . GPE thus undertook to repay original deposits and interest accrued by DATE at the original rate , as well as interest accrued from DATE until DATE at an DATE rate of PERCENT ( section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ) . As regards the period thereafter , the interest rate depended on whether a depositor had opted for government bonds or cash . The depositors were entitled to obtain either government bonds , which were to be amortised by DATE in DATE instalments and earned interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT , or cash from the banks in which they had money , together with interest at the market rate plus PERCENT in DATE instalments . In the latter case , the banks were to be issued with government bonds . Some depositors opted for government bonds as they could use them to purchase ORG - owned flats and companies and to pay taxes and pension contributions .

Shortly after its declaration of independence , GPE nationalised and then , in DATE , restructured ORG by virtue of an amendment to the DATE LAW . Most of its assets and a part of its liabilities were transferred to a new bank – Nova Ljubljanska Banka ( see section CARDINAL(b ) of that LAW , cited in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The old bank retained liability for “ old ” foreign - currency savings in its branches in the other successor GPE and the related claims against the ORG ( ibid . ) . On the basis of that Act , domestic courts rendered a number of decisions ordering the old PERSON to pay “ old ” foreign - currency savings to clients at its GPE branch ; at the same time , domestic courts considered that ORG itself had no liabilities in this regard ( see ORG judgments PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ; II Ips CARDINAL of DATE ; and PERSON CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) . The old PERSON was initially administered by ORG . It is now controlled by a NORP government agency DATE ORG .

In DATE all proceedings concerning “ old ” foreign - currency savings in the old PERSON branches in the other successor GPE ( with the exception of third - instance proceedings before ORG ) were stayed pending the succession negotiations ( see ORG DATE , as amended in DATE , and ORG and ORG ) . In DATE ORG , upon a petition of CARDINAL NORP savers , declared that measure unconstitutional .

ORG has since given many judgments ordering the old PERSON to pay “ old ” foreign - currency savings in its GPE branch together with interest ( see , for example , judgment P CARDINAL of DATE , which became final and binding on DATE when it was upheld by ORG ; judgment P CARDINAL of DATE ; and judgment P CARDINAL of DATE ) . The court explained that , according to the SFRY law , branches had acted on behalf and for the account of parent banks . Moreover , according to the NORP law , the old PERSON retained liability for “ old ” foreign - currency savings in its GPE branch . The court considered it irrelevant that a homonymous bank , GPE , had assumed liability of the old Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana for savings at the GPE branch in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as that had been done without the approval of the parent bank or the depositors . In any event , the competent court in GPE had deleted the DATE entry in the companies register to that effect in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG also considered it irrelevant that some foreign currency had been transferred to the ORG ’s foreign accounts in accordance with the redepositing scheme set out above .

The former GPE paid back “ old ” foreign - currency savings in domestic banks and local branches of foreign banks , such as the GPE branch of ORG , regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

NORP The applicants’ personal details as well as the facts in relation to each case are set out in the appendix .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of different civil proceedings under LAW .

In the first applicant ’s case ORG found a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time , but failed to award any damages . As regards the third applicant ORG rejected its appeal . Lastly , as regards the other CARDINAL applicants , ORG held that they had not raised a complaint about the length of the proceedings .


Violation of Article 6+P1-1-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

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

The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

He worked as a sailor on an ocean carrier for a shipping company headquartered in GPE .

NORP In DATE the police and the ORG Attorney ’s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : “ the OSCOC ” ) investigated allegations of possible drug trafficking between LOC and LOC via ocean carriers , involving several persons from GPE .

On DATE , on the basis of a police report , the ORG requested an investigating judge of ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) to authorise the use of secret surveillance measures to tap the applicant ’s telephone and covertly monitor him .

The investigating judge granted the request and on DATE issued an order for the use of secret surveillance measures . Its statement of reasons reads as follows :

“ On DATE the ORG lodged a request , no . ... , for secret surveillance measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of PERSON . The request refers to the [ police ] report of DATE , concerning the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , alleging probable cause to believe that [ Ante Dragojević ] is also involved in the commission of the offence proscribed by LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .

The investigating judge considers that the request is well - founded because the investigation can not be carried out by other means and the use of these measures in respect of PERSON is also necessary for satisfactory completion of the investigation , given that there are sufficient grounds for suspecting that he has also been involved in the commission of the offence in issue .

It is therefore appropriate to temporarily limit the constitutional rights and decide as above . ”

In the course of the further investigation the ORG learnt that the applicant had been using another telephone number . On DATE it asked the investigating judge to extend the use of secret surveillance measures to tap that number .

On DATE the investigating judge granted that request and issued an order , which contains the following statement of reasons :

“ Based on an order of this court under the above number , the secret surveillance measures provided for in LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW are being conducted in respect of several persons for the offence proscribed under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the ORG lodged a request for secret surveillance measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of GPE , and the secret surveillance measure under [ LAW above - cited provision in respect of PERSON , who was using the telephone number ... This measure was also requested in respect of another unidentified person who was using the number ... since the results of the previous use of secret surveillance measures showed that they had made contact in order to commit the offence in issue .

The investigating judge considers that the request is well - founded because the investigation can not be carried out by other means , so it is necessary to temporarily limit the constitutional rights and order the measures noted in the operative part of this order under points I and II .

The ORG also asked that certain measures be terminated because they had not produced any result , and a decision was made accordingly as noted under point V of this order . ”

NORP On DATE the ORG requested that the use of secret surveillance measures be extended for a further DATE .

The investigating judge granted the request and on DATE issued an order based on the following statement of reasons :

“ Based on an order of this court under the above number , the secret surveillance measures provided for in LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW are being conducted in respect of several persons for an offence proscribed under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the ORG lodged a request for an extension of the use of secret surveillance measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of GPE , GPE and PERSON on grounds of suspected conspiracy in drug trafficking between LOC and GPE . It appears , given their constant contacts , that the offence could be committed within DATE so it was proposed that the use of measures be extended for that period .

The investigating judge considers that the request is well - founded because the investigation can not be carried out by other means and given the circumstances of the offence it is necessary to extend the use of [ secret surveillance ] measures in order to achieve satisfactory completion of the investigation and obtaining of evidence .

It is therefore decided accordingly as noted in the operative part of this order . ”

On DATE the ORG requested the investigating judge to discontinue the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of the applicant on the grounds that the results of the investigation did not justify further secret surveillance .

The investigating judge granted the request and ordered the discontinuation of secret surveillance on DATE .

On DATE the ORG made a new request for secret surveillance in respect of the applicant .

On DATE the investigating judge issued a secret surveillance order with the following statement of reasons :

“ By orders under the above number secret surveillance was ordered in respect of PERSON ( on DATE and discontinued on DATE ) , and in respect of ...

On DATE the ORG lodged a request for secret surveillance measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of PERSON , GPE and FAC for DATE in connection with offences proscribed under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , and for the discontinuation of secret surveillance in respect of ORG and an unidentified person . In their request [ the ORG ] submits that the investigation shows that there is a possibility that these individuals could contact each other again and that they could contact GPE , who travelled to LOC and is expected to stay there for DATE . [ The ORG ] therefore considers that by resuming the use of secret surveillance relevant information for the further investigation could be obtained . On the other hand , there has been no communication on the telephone numbers of GPE and the unidentified person so [ the ORG ] proposes that the secret surveillance in that respect be discontinued .

The investigating judge finds in the case in issue that it is necessary to temporarily limit the constitutional rights of the above - mentioned individuals since investigation by another means would not be possible . It has therefore been decided as noted under points I and II , while at the same time [ certain ] measures have been discontinued as noted under points III and IV of this order . ”

After further preliminary investigation , on DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of drug trafficking .

The following day ORG ( FAC uprava DATE ) lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE ORG Attorney ’s ORG ( GPE državno odvjetništvo u ORG ; hereinafter : the “ ORG Attorney ’s Office ” ) against the applicant and another person on charges of drug trafficking .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by an investigating judge of ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) . He stressed that it was true that he worked on an ocean carrier between LOC and LOC but denied that he had anything to do with any drug trafficking .

After the questioning the investigating judge opened an investigation in respect of the applicant and several other persons on suspicion of drug trafficking . The investigating judge also remanded the applicant in custody .

During the investigation the investigating judge questioned several witnesses and obtained the relevant results and analyses of the use of secret surveillance measures , as well as evidence obtained following a number of searches conducted during the investigation . Throughout the proceedings the applicant was remanded in custody .

After the completion of the investigation , on DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other persons in ORG on charges of drug trafficking . The applicant was also indicted on charges of money laundering .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG presided over by judge GPE extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision in respect of the applicant reads :

“ This panel considers that the pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of the accused PERSON and PERSON should be extended because the type and quantity of drugs which are the subject of the indictment , and the manner of commission [ of the offence ] , indicate particularly grave circumstances of the offence for which the pre - trial detention should be extended ”

On DATE the applicant ’s defence lawyer asked ORG for access to and a copy of the audio recordings obtained by the use of secret surveillance measures .

The request for access to the recordings was granted on DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision on his pre - trial detention before ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the applicant also lodged an objection against the indictment , arguing , inter alia , that the results of the secret surveillance measures did not suggest that he had been involved in the offence .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) on the grounds that the first - instance court had failed to state any reasons why the applicant ’s detention should be extended under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . Without releasing the applicant , it therefore ordered that the matter be re - examined .

ORG complied with that order and on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of that court , presided over by Judge PERSON , extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ The fact that the defendant PERSON is a reoffender , who has been sentenced by a final judgment of ORG no . KML-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , a final judgment of ORG no . K-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , and a final judgment of ORG no . PERSON of DATE , suggests that his previous behaviour has not been in compliance with the law and that there is therefore a risk that , if at large , he might reoffend .

Accordingly , this court considers that his detention should be extended under LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

Furthermore , this panel considers that the detention of PERSON should be extended under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW since the type and quantity of the drug which is the subject matter of the charges and the manner of execution [ of the offence ] suggest that the circumstances of the offence were particularly serious and thus warrant his further detention .

To be specific , cocaine is a hard drug and QUANTITY of it is not an insignificant amount . Such a quantity could be distributed in a number of single doses and thus endanger the health of a number of people , particularly young people . Having regard also to the international character of the offence , and the recorded LAW from the proceeds of the crime which surpasses the usual circumstances associated with such offences , and the criminal resolve and engagement necessary to commit the offence charged , [ the court considers ] that the detention should be extended LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . ”

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection against the indictment as ill - founded ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that there was sufficient suspicion to warrant sending the case for trial .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was further extended by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , presided over by Judge PERSON on DATE , which reiterated the same reasons as in its previous decision .

Meanwhile , Judge PERSON , who had presided over the panels extending the applicant ’s pre - trial detention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) , assumed responsibility for the applicant ’s case as president of the trial bench of ORG .

At hearings held on DATE and DATE the applicant pleaded not guilty and the trial bench heard evidence from several witnesses .

The applicant also applied to have the results of the secret surveillance measures excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence on the grounds that the orders for their use had not been sufficiently reasoned and had thus been contrary to ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a short oral explanation and ruling out the possibility of appeal against his decision , the president of the trial bench dismissed the applicant ’s request as ill - founded . The trial bench then examined the evidence obtained by secret surveillance . It also decided to obtain further evidence proposed by the prosecution and the applicant , and adjourned the hearing .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , composed of judges TIME , GPE and PERSON , extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) reiterating the reasons stated in the previous decisions on his detention .

On DATE Judge PERSON , referring to the ORG ’s case - law and the case - law of ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , asked to withdraw from the case as president of the trial bench on the grounds that his previous involvement in the case , as president of the panels which had extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention , could raise doubts about his impartiality .

Following Judge PERSON ’s request , on CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG asked ORG to transfer the trial to another court since all the judges of ORG had already taken part in the applicant ’s case .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed that request on the grounds that there were no reasons to doubt the impartiality of ORG judges . It held that the mere fact that a judge had presided over the panels extending the applicant ’s detention could not raise any issue of his impartiality since the questions to be decided when the detention was extended differed from those which the judge had to decide when examining the case on the merits . There were also no reasons to doubt the impartiality of Judge PERSON within the meaning of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant ’s detention was further extended on DATE by a CARDINAL - judge panel in which Judge PERSON sat as a member of the panel , relying on LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) and reiterating the reasons from the previous decisions on detention .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the trial bench questioned several witnesses and the defence again sought to have the evidence obtained by secret surveillance excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence . Ruling out the possibility of appeal , the president of the trial bench dismissed the request as ill - founded . The trial bench thus examined the evidence obtained by the use of secret surveillance measures .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , composed of judges TIME , GPE and GPE , extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) , reiterating the reasons stated in the previous decisions .

At a hearing on DATE the applicant pleaded not guilty and denied all the charges against him . The parties gave their closing statements and the trial bench concluded the hearing .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on charges of drug trafficking and money laundering and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The judgment was based on an analysis of the applicant ’s defence and the statements of his co - accused , as well as on the statements of witnesses , evidence obtained through numerous searches and seizures and the use of secret surveillance measures .

As to the refusal to exclude the latter evidence from the case file , ORG noted :

“ The court found that the defence of the accused PERSON was unconvincing , contradictory and aimed at avoiding his criminal responsibility .... The court examined the audio recordings ( CD ) of the conversations between the accused and witnesses GPE and GPE after it had found that the recordings had been made pursuant to the orders of the investigating judge of ORG no . PERSON authorising the telephone tapping . These were the reasons why the court dismissed the request made during the proceedings that these recordings be excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence . [ Moreover ] the court considered them to be lawful and acceptable evidence obtained pursuant to valid court decisions . This court also refused the request by the defence to examine the case files of ORG no . PERSON and ORG no . PERSON [ concerning the use of secret surveillance ] , because it considered those requests irrelevant and obsolete for the same reasons referred to in the decisions concerning the requests for exclusion of the secret surveillance recordings from the case file . As to the request that the secret surveillance orders be excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence on the grounds that they did not contain an assessment of the likelihood that the accused themselves or jointly with other persons had committed one of the offences proscribed under LAW , and that they did not contain an assessment of whether the investigation could be conducted by other means , this court considers that this is not correct because the orders were sufficient and well - reasoned and eventually resulted in an indictment being lodged [ against the accused ] . In any event , as to the request by the defence that the secret surveillance orders be excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence , it should be noted that these are not evidence but court decisions so they can not be excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence . And as regards the evidence obtained on the basis of these orders , this court considers that there was no breach of LAW and therefore it does not consider them to be fruit of the poisonous tree but lawfully obtained evidence . ”

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment with ORG . He argued , inter alia , that the secret surveillance orders had not been properly drafted as required under LAW given that they had not given a proper assessment of the likelihood that the offences in issue had been committed , or of the circumstances indicating that the investigation could not be conducted by other means . In his view , this had led to his unlawful surveillance and therefore any evidence thus obtained could not be used in the criminal proceedings against him . He challenged , further , the basis of the first - instance court ’s reasoning in its judgment , namely , the evidence obtained through secret surveillance . The applicant also requested ORG to quash the first - instance judgment and order that a retrial be held before a differently composed trial bench .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded and upheld the first - instance judgment on DATE . It held that all relevant facts had been sufficiently and correctly established , that the applicant had had every opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings and that the first - instance court had given sufficient reasons for its decisions . As to the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant ’s secret surveillance , ORG noted :

“ As regards the secret surveillance orders , contrary to what is alleged in the appeal , these impugned orders contain sufficient reasons as to probable cause to believe that the offence under LAW of LAW was committed , as well as to the fact that the investigation into this offence could not be conducted by other means and that [ such investigation ] would be extremely difficult , which is evident from the fact that the investigating judge did not refuse to issue the orders . In fact he issued the orders as required under LAW of LAW . It follows that the appellant ’s allegation that the impugned orders of the investigating judge do not contain sufficient reasons , is erroneous and that they are therefore not unlawfully obtained evidence within the meaning of LAW . ”

The applicant subsequently lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG on DATE arguing , inter alia , that the trial bench had lacked impartiality because of the previous involvement of Judge PERSON in the case ; that his secret surveillance had been unlawful on account of the failure of the investigating judge to issue an order in the manner required under the relevant law ; and that the use of the evidence thus obtained for his conviction had rendered the entire proceedings unfair .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint as ill - founded . It endorsed the reasoning of ORG with regard to the use of secret surveillance measures and the use of evidence thus obtained in the proceedings . As regards the lack of impartiality of the trial bench , ORG observed :

“ In the case in issue , the mere fact that the president of the trial bench had on CARDINAL previous occasions ... sat on a panel which extended the appellant ’s pre - trial detention can not in itself be a reason for disqualifying the judge from deciding the merits of the case .

There is a significant difference between the decision on detention and the decision on the guilt of the appellant . When ruling on an extension of detention , a member of a panel of judges decides only the legal issues on which the application of the procedural law concerning the so - called causae arresti ( LAW ) depends . Accordingly , he or she does not assess all the legal and factual aspects of the charges . The charges will be assessed in the first - instance proceedings . However , the appellant has not advanced any reasons why Judge PERSON ’s participation in the panel [ of judges ] which had extended his detention could be considered to have led him to form a previous conviction as to his guilt . ”

The decision of ORG was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in Balakliya .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to hospital to undergo treatment for drug addiction .

On DATE , in the course of a police operation , an undercover police agent bought a certain amount of cannabis from the applicant when he was in hospital . After the sale was completed it was documented in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses . The applicant was further searched and some additional quantities of the drug were seized .

On DATE the police officers arrested the applicant under LAW of LAW for a violation of the drug circulation rules . Relying on the provisions of that LAW , the police detained the applicant for DATE pending the results of an expert examination of the seized drugs .

On DATE , upon receipt of the expert report confirming that the seized drug was cannabis , the investigator of ORG decided to arrest the applicant and detain him further under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , considering that the sale of cannabis in hospital constituted a crime under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant was questioned on DATE .

On DATE the police also opened criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW , noting that on DATE they had seized some additional quantities of cannabis from him which he had transported to and kept in the hospital .

On DATE the applicant was brought before ORG , which ordered his pre - trial detention as a preventive measure . The court noted that the charges against the applicant were serious , that he was not in employment and had committed crimes while being treated in a hospital . For these reasons the court concluded that the applicant might abscond from justice , obstruct the investigation , or reoffend .

On DATE the criminal case file arrived at ORG of Kharkiv ( “ the first - instance court ” ) for the applicant to be tried .

On DATE the first - instance court committed the applicant for trial . It decided that the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant , namely , custody , should remain the same .

On DATE the applicant requested the first - instance court to release him under a written obligation not to abscond .

On DATE the first - instance court rejected the applicant ’s request . The court noted that there had been no grounds to consider that the reasons justifying the earlier court decision of CARDINAL DATE on the applicant ’s detention were no longer valid . The applicant ’s reference to the illness of his mother and the death of this father was not relevant . Likewise , his acknowledgment of guilt was irrelevant and could only be taken into account for mitigation of sentence .

On DATE the first - instance court ruled that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain the same , without specifying the reasons .

On DATE the local prosecutor ’s office refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant ’s allegations that his initial detention was unlawful .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request to have the preventive measure changed . On DATE the first - instance court rejected the request as unfounded . The court noted that there were no grounds to consider that the reasons justifying the earlier court decision of CARDINAL DATE on the applicant ’s detention were no longer valid ; the allegations of the aggravation of the applicant ’s health were not confirmed by the materials in the case file and the applicant ’s contentions that he was the only source of support for his mother were not convincing .

On DATE the applicant and his mother , who had joined the proceedings as the applicant ’s defence counsel , lodged a new request for release . The applicant ’s mother specified that she could not work for health reasons and the applicant was her only support . On DATE the first - instance court rejected the request , noting that the reasons already given by the court for the applicant ’s detention remained valid ; the allegations that the applicant was providing support to his mother were not convincing , since at the time of his arrest the applicant had not been in employment , while his mother received a pension ; likewise , the applicant could not be released for health reasons as there was no supporting information about his illnesses .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) arguing that his initial detention had not been lawful .

On DATE and DATE the applicant and his mother lodged requests for the release of the applicant with the first - instance court . The applicant ’s mother specified that the applicant had been her only support and that his health was seriously deteriorating . The court dismissed the requests on DATE , repeating its earlier findings in respect of similar requests .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged a complaint with the first - instance court arguing that the applicant ’s initial detention under LAW , without a court order , had been unlawful .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant that his complaint regarding the lawfulness of his initial detention would be considered by the first - instance court in the course of the trial in his criminal case .

On DATE the first - instance court found the applicant guilty of the crimes under LAW § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment combined with confiscation of property . The court further found that the applicant ’s contentions that his initial detention had been unlawful were unsubstantiated because there had been sufficient grounds to detain the applicant under LAW . In particular , his detention for DATE had been justified as the police had been waiting for the expert report confirming that the seized substance was cannabis . The court also decided that the term of the applicant ’s imprisonment should be calculated from CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant appealed against that judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld the findings of the first - instance court , having amended the reasoning as regards the characteristics of the applicant ’s crime under LAW . The court further reduced the sentence to CARDINAL half GPE imprisonment .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant had ownership rights to a shop at FAC in PERSON . According to the certificate “ on the sale of ORG property to legal entities or individuals ” issued on DATE by ORG , the total area of the property was QUANTITY . m and it had been purchased by the applicant from the ORG for CARDINAL old NORP manats ( NORP ) ( equivalent to CARDINAL NORP manats ( ORG ) or MONEY ) .

According to the property ’s “ technical passport ” issued by ORG on DATE , the shop had originally been constructed in DATE , was located on a plot of land of QUANTITY m , had a total surface area of QUANTITY m and was QUANTITY . The shop had concrete foundations , the external and internal walls were made of metal and wood , while the roof was made of metal and covered with slate tiles . The property was classified as a nonresidential building used for wholesale or retail trade purposes . The document further stated that the plot of land on which the shop was located had been allocated on the basis of relevant documents . No other documents concerning the ownership of the land have been submitted by the parties .

The applicant paid land tax for DATE of NORP CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the plot underneath the shop .

In DATE the Ganja City Executive Authority ( “ the LOC ” ) decided to renovate and widen Attarlar and Nizami Streets in accordance with the city ’s planning scheme because the streets were not wide enough for the pedestrian and car traffic .

According to the applicant , in DATE ORG officials asked him verbally to vacate the shop in connection with the above decision . The applicant refused and brought a legal action asking the court to order the ORG to stop its allegedly unlawful activities .

According to the applicant , in DATE the ORG destroyed the shop . According to the Government , the shop , being a transportable metal construction , was lifted away by crane and moved to an unspecified part of the city .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant asked PERSON , a private valuation firm , to assess the shop ’s market value . According to ORG expert report , dated DATE , the market value at the time was AZM CARDINAL , or MONEY ( ORG ) ( there is no copy of the report in the case file ) .

The applicant supplemented his court action against the ORG with additional claims , asking for compensation of ORG CARDINAL for the shop , ORG for an unspecified “ ORG fee ” and NORP for ORG fee for the report .

In its submissions to the court , the ORG as the respondent stated that a number of “ old shops and other retail facilities ” on Attarlar and Nizami Streets had been removed owing to the urgent need to widen the streets in order to accommodate the number of pedestrians and cars . The respondent argued that the applicant ’s shop had not been destroyed but , being a metal construction , had been removed by crane to another , unspecified location in the city . The applicant had been offered another plot of land in the city to continue operating his shop but he had refused . The applicant had not owned the original plot of land . The respondent argued that the compensation claimed by the applicant was excessive , taking into account the price he had paid the ORG for it in DATE .

Following the respondent ’s submissions concerning the alleged excessiveness of the compensation claim , by an interim decision of DATE the ORG requested a new valuation by a ORG expert .

On an unspecified date the ORG expert refused to issue an opinion , noting that the shop at CARDINAL FAC no longer existed and that therefore it was technically impossible to examine it and assess its market value . Accordingly , the interim decision of DATE remained unexecuted .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s legal action without citing any provisions of the applicable domestic law . In its reasoning the court accepted the ORG ’s explanation that the shop in question had been removed in accordance with townplanning policy . Being a metal construction it had been possible to move it in one piece . It had not been destroyed but simply transported to another location . The court also accepted that the applicant had been offered a new plot of land by the ORG but had refused it . It further decided to reject the applicant ’s compensation claim based on ORG report , without providing any reasons . However , the court ordered the ORG to allocate the applicant a plot of land in PERSON equivalent in size to the shop in question .

The applicant appealed , reiterating that his shop had been unlawfully destroyed and asking for compensation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , upholding the first - instance court ’s assessment . The appellate judgment contained no references to applicable domestic legal provisions .

Following a further appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .

No information is available in the case file as to whether a new land plot was allocated to the applicant or as to its location or any other details .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before ORG and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

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

At the time of the events the applicant ’s son , PERSON , who was born in DATE , was serving a prison sentence in FAC .

On DATE the applicant ’s son asked to see the prison doctor . The doctor examined him , diagnosed him with myalgia ( muscle pain ) and anxiety and gave him medication to treat his problems .

At TIME on DATE , suffering from severe chest pain and shortness of breath , the applicant ’s son went to the prison infirmary . According to the applicant , the doctor was about to leave for DATE and therefore hastily examined her son and gave him painkillers and a sleeping pill before sending him back to his cell .

At TIME the applicant ’s son ’s condition worsened and he had difficulty breathing . He told the other inmates in his wing that he had severe pain in his chest . Some of the inmates carried him to the infirmary but it was closed . Subsequently , a prison warden arrived and called an ambulance . The applicant ’s son died on the way to the hospital .

On DATE an autopsy was conducted by a forensic pathologist at ORG in the presence of the ORG prosecutor . Since the cause of death could not be determined during that autopsy , blood samples and tissue samples taken from the heart , brain , lungs , liver , kidneys , spleen and the coronary arteries were sent for histopathological and toxicological examinations at ORG headquarters in GPE .

The following day the prosecutor initiated an ex officio investigation into the death of the applicant ’s son . He asked the prison administration to forward him the applicant ’s son ’s medical file and the names of the prison personnel who were on duty at the time of the events , as well as the names of the inmates detained on the same wing as the applicant ’s son . That information was provided to the prosecutor on DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor took a statement from the prison doctor . The doctor told the prosecutor that at TIME on DATE he had examined the applicant ’s son who had come to the prison ’s infirmary with pain in his chest and shoulder and complained of difficulties in sleeping . The doctor told the prosecutor that he had prescribed CARDINAL medicines to the applicant ’s son , namely “ ORG , GPE , GPE and LOC ” , to relax his muscles , relieve his pain and calm him down . However , as he had examined a total of CARDINAL prisoners DATE , he did not have any further recollection of the applicant ’s son or his problems .

DATE the prosecutor took a statement from the prison director who explained that , according to the closed circuit video recordings showing the inside of the prison , the applicant ’s son had been brought to the infirmary at TIME by his fellow inmates . An ambulance had then been called and a prison guard had administered first aid . The ambulance had arrived at TIME and taken the applicant ’s son to the hospital .

NORP The prison guard who had administered first aid to the applicant ’s son was also heard by the prosecutor on DATE and told the prosecutor that he had been asked to go to the prison ’s infirmary some time TIME When he had arrived the applicants’ son was still alive but having difficulties in breathing . He had then called the ambulance again and urged them to come at once because the state of the applicant ’s son ’s health had become critical . The ambulance had arrived at TIME When put in the ambulance on a stretcher the applicant ’s son had been alive but his condition had been critical . His body had started to take on a “ purple colour ” . The prison guard had also got in the ambulance and the doctor in the ambulance had carried out cardiac massage . However the applicant ’s son had died on the way to hospital .

On DATE the prosecutor took statements from CARDINAL inmates who had witnessed the incident on DATE . The inmates told the prosecutor that they had been aware that the applicant ’s son had been suffering from chest pains . They had also been aware that the applicant ’s son had gone to the infirmary DATE to see the prison doctor . CARDINAL of the inmates stated that he had accompanied the applicant ’s son to the infirmary at TIME but that the prison doctor had been about to leave for DATE and had hastily prescribed him painkillers without giving him a proper medical examination . The applicant ’s son ’s condition had deteriorated after his return from the infirmary and he had been unable to get out of his bed for the roll call which took place at TIME After the roll call the inmates had carried him to the infirmary because he had been unable to walk unaided .

CARDINAL of the inmates who had carried the applicant ’s son out of his wing told the prosecutor that the infirmary had been closed at the time and that they had instead taken him to the dentist ’s office where they had waited for TIME for a prison warden to arrive . They also stated that the telephones in the infirmary had not been working . When the prison warden arrived he tried to put an oxygen mask on the applicant ’s son but then quickly took it off when the applicant ’s son felt worse with the mask . The inmates then “ put pressure on the prison warden to call an ambulance ” and they waited a further TIME for the ambulance to arrive .

On DATE the applicant ’s other son , Mr PERSON , filed a petition with the prosecutor ’s office and informed the prosecutor that his brother had had no previous health problems and that during his frequent visits to the prison his brother had told him that he was well and would be released soon . Mr GPE asked the prosecutor to find out why his brother had lost his life and requested that an investigation be conducted to establish whether the death had been due to anyone ’s negligence . He also asked the prosecutor to determine whether there had been any delays in calling the ambulance and requested the prosecutor to secure in evidence the recordings from the prison ’s security cameras .

DATE the prosecutor questioned the deputy director of the prison and CARDINAL other prison guards . They explained to the prosecutor how they had been informed about the deterioration of the applicant ’s son ’s condition and how they had then called the ambulance and sent him to hospital .

At the request of the prosecutor , the footage recorded by the prison ’s security cameras was examined by crime scene examination experts from the ORG police headquarters on DATE . According to the report prepared by these experts , CARDINAL persons could be seen carrying another person in their arms at TIME and TIME The person was put on a stretcher at TIME and put in an ambulance at TIME

The applicant and her husband were questioned by the prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE . They both told the prosecutor that they had not been aware that their son had had any health problems . The applicant added that on CARDINAL occasion DATE before her son was imprisoned he had told her that “ he was not well ” , but had not elaborated as to the nature of his problem .

On DATE the prosecutor wrote to ORG in GPE and urged it to carry out the necessary examinations of the blood and tissue samples taken from the body of the applicant ’s son . The prosecutor sent another reminder to ORG on DATE .

The doctor and the paramedic who had taken the applicant ’s son to the hospital were questioned by the prosecutor on DATE . They told the prosecutor that they had been called to the prison at TIME and that they had arrived there at TIME When they had put the applicant ’s son in the ambulance he had stopped breathing and his heart had stopped beating . They had tried to resuscitate him and had arrived at the hospital at TIME where they had handed the applicant ’s son to the doctors waiting by the main entrance .

The doctor working at the accident and emergency department of the hospital made a statement on DATE and told the prosecutor that the applicant ’s son had already died on his arrival at the hospital . He and his colleagues had then unsuccessfully tried for TIME to resuscitate him .

ORG in GPE prepared its report on CARDINAL DATE and stated that according to the toxicological examinations there was no alcohol , drugs or other substances in the samples taken from the body . ORG considered it necessary to seek the opinion of its specialist board on the cause of death .

On DATE ORG of ORG , which consisted of CARDINAL medical experts , issued its report . It confirmed the findings of the toxicology report summarised in the preceding paragraph and added that during the autopsy no signs of traumatic changes on the body had been observed . According to the report , the CARDINAL experts unanimously concluded that the exact cause of death could not be determined .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor delivered a decision of non - prosecution and concluded that there was no evidence to show that an offence had been committed . The prosecutor also added that the applicant ’s son had died of natural causes and that there had been no fault or negligence attributable to another person in his death .

The applicant lodged an objection against the prosecutor ’s decision and argued , inter alia , that the fact that there had been no signs of trauma on the body of her son and that the toxicology reports had not shown any harmful substances in his body did not exclude that someone ’s negligence or fault had caused his death . She submitted that the prosecutor should have made attempts to establish whether or not the prison authorities had shown due care and attention and whether the prison doctor had examined him adequately . In this connection , she also argued that the role played in her son ’s death of the infirmary being closed when his condition worsened and the appropriateness of the medicines prescribed by the prison doctor , should also have been examined by the prosecutor .

The applicant added in her objection petition that , according to the eyewitnesses , her son had been complaining about having breathing problems as well as pain in his chest , heart and muscles . However the doctor , instead of at least referring her son to a hospital for a detailed examination and further tests , had given him painkillers . The fact that her son ’s condition had worsened after having taken the painkillers showed that the doctor had acted negligently . Finally , she alleged that the ambulance had not been called immediately .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . That decision was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .

According to a report drawn up and signed by a doctor on DATE , at the time of his entry into the prison a medical examination had been carried out on the applicant ’s son and no medical problems had been observed during that examination .


KRŽEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

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 .

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

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

In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against his employer , claiming payment of salary supplements . With decisions delivered on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG and ORG both rejected the applicant ’s claim , considering it as having been withdrawn .

On DATE the applicant applied to the first - instance court for the proceedings to be resumed . The first - instance court ordered the applicant to make his claim more specific . In a reply dated DATE , the applicant specified that the claim concerned the payment of a PERCENT increase of his salary , as well as another employment - related allowance . In this connection he referred to his written submissions of DATE in which he specified his claim .

On DATE the first - instance court held that the applicant had not specified the value of his claim to an extend allowing the court to rule on it . Furthermore , the court pointed out that it could not take into consideration his submissions of DATE since they had been made in proceedings which had terminated with a final decision in DATE . As the applicant could not seek that those final proceedings be resumed , the court rejected the applicant ’s request . This decision was confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant contested these decisions by means of an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal , quashed the lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :

“ ... In the present case , the first - instance court correctly ordered [ the applicant ] to make the claim more specific . According to [ this ] court , [ the applicant ] complied with this order and with submissions of DATE , he specified the claim ... According to ORG , the claim is ( sufficiently ) specified and the proceedings can continue . The lower courts’ decisions to reject the claim as incomplete ( неуредна ) are wrong .

In view of the foregoing , ( the court ) decided in accordance with ... LAW of DATE , which was in force when the first - instance court delivered its decision ... ”

By decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the first - instance court and ORG both dismissed the applicant ’s claim on the merits .

On DATE the applicant challenged these decisions by means of an appeal on points of law .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal as inadmissible ratione valoris , finding that the value of the claim was below the statutory threshold specified in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court established that the subject matter of the dispute was the payment of salary supplements . Since it did not concern “ termination of employment ” , which was specified , under section GPE ) of the DATE LAW , as a dispute in which an appeal on points of law was always allowed irrespective of the value of the claim , the court declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible . It further stated that :

“ The [ applicant ] did not specify the value of the claim in his action . In such circumstances , the value of the claim is to be determined on the basis of the amount of court fees paid . The [ applicant ] paid court fees in the amount of MONEY ( NORP denars , ORG ) , which corresponds to the claim value of MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which is below the ( statutory threshold ) of MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The appeal on points of law is accordingly inadmissible given the ( low ) value of the claim . ”

NORP This decision was notified to the applicant on DATE .

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that parties concerned could lodge an appeal on points of law against a second - instance final decision within DATE of the service of that decision . An appeal would be inadmissible in a property - related dispute which , inter alia , concerned a pecuniary claim , if the value of the claim in the dispute as specified by the plaintiff did not exceed MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of that section an appeal was always allowed in disputes which concerned ( i ) maintenance ; ( ii ) compensation claims for loss of maintenance due to death of the care provider ; ( iii ) copyright disputes ; ( iv ) industrial - property - related disputes ; and disputes concerning unfair competition and anti - competitive behaviour .

NORP Under section QUANTITY , parties can lodge an appeal on points of law if the value of the claim in the dispute exceeds MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . An appeal is always allowed irrespective of the value of the claim in disputes concerning ( i ) maintenance ; ( ii ) compensation claims for loss of maintenance due to the death of the care provider ; ( iii ) labour disputes concerning termination of employment ; ( iv ) copyright disputes ; ( v ) industrial - property - related disputes and disputes concerning unfair competition and anti - competitive behaviour .

Under section CARDINAL , if a first - instance decision was delivered before LAW became operable , the proceedings are conducted under the rules that were applicable at that time . If the first - instance decision was set aside after this LAW became operable , the proceedings continue under this LAW .

Under LAW , LAW entered into force on DATE and it became operable on DATE .


CASE OF KENZIE GLOBAL LIMITED LTD v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

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

The applicant is a company incorporated in GPE .

At the time of the events the applicant company was the creditor of company ORG which , in its turn , was the creditor of company P. On DATE the applicant company and company C. concluded an agreement by which the debt owed by company P. to company C. was assigned to the applicant company in lieu of the debt owed by company C. to the applicant company .

Later company P. became bankrupt and the insolvency procedure was commenced in its respect . On DATE the applicant company requested that ORG allow it to replace company ORG in the list of creditors of company P. In so doing , the applicant company relied on an agreement that it had concluded on DATE with company C.

On DATE ORG held a public hearing in the case and accepted the applicant company ’s request . As a result the applicant company replaced company C. in the list of creditors of company P. with a debt of some CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE company C. lodged an appeal against the above decision on the ground , inter alia , that the agreement of DATE was faulty and that the persons who had signed it from both sides had acted ultra vires .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal lodged by company C. in a hearing to which the applicant company had not been summoned to appear . The other parties participated in the hearing . ORG upheld the appeal and reversed the judgment of the lower court . In particular , ORG held that the person who had signed the agreement of DATE on behalf of company ORG had acted ultra vires , because at the relevant time she had been on maternity leave . The decision of ORG was final and the applicant company was excluded from the list of creditors of company P.


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

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Ms E. NORP ORG , 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 applicant was involved in a fraud case against ORG , GPE , GPE and ORG concerning the sale of a house . The applicant 's civil complaints made the object of the case files no . CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant and GPE lodged a criminal complaint and a joined civil claim against CARDINAL public administration officers and the CARDINAL above - mentioned private persons for alleged corruption with ORG .

On DATE ORG remitted the applicant 's complaint to ORG . The prosecutor stated that an analysis of the applicant 's complaint had disclosed no clues or information warranting an investigation of the alleged crimes by an anticorruption prosecutor .

On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor examined the applicant 's complaint and recommended that it be treated as a complaint against the prosecutor 's decisions in the fraud cases CARDINAL and CARDINAL . He confirmed that there was no evidence that the public administration officers ( including judges , prosecutors ) had committed the alleged corruption offences .

According to the ORG , the prosecutor dismissed the applicant 's complaint on DATE . The applicant complained before ORG . His complaint was dismissed on DATE . The judgment of the first - instance court was confirmed by ORG which dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law on DATE .

On DATE the applicant reiterated his complaint against the CARDINAL perpetrators . His complaint was registered as file no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the prosecutor informed the applicant that his complaint did not disclose other acts than those invoked in case files no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

Unsatisfied with a decision allegedly delivered by the prosecutor attached to ORG on DATE , the applicant and GPE lodged a complaint before ORG . The court dismissed the action for lack of substance on DATE . It noted that the applicant 's complaints in the fraud cases CARDINAL were still pending before the prosecutor 's office and no decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings had been delivered on DATE .

By a decision of DATE , ORG and ORG upheld the first - instance judgment dismissing the action .

In the meantime , the examination of the applicant 's first complaint was pending and would eventually result in the decision delivered by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW regarding the initiation of a civil action related to criminal proceedings are the following :

“ The object of a civil action is to establish civil liability against the defendant and any other party that bears civil liability .

A civil action may be joined to a criminal action within a criminal trial if the injured person claims for damages as a civil party ( ... ) ” .

“ The injured person may join the proceedings as a civil party against the accused person or the defendant and against the party that bears civil liability .

Joining the proceedings as a civil party may be done either during the criminal investigation or in court , before the charges are read out ( ... ) ” .

“ An injured person who did not sue for civil injury in the criminal trial may bring an action in the civil court for compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the offence .

The civil trial shall be postponed until a final decision has been given in the criminal case ( ... ) ” .

“ The injured person who can sue for civil injury in the criminal trial may initiate an action in the civil court if the criminal court , by its final decision , has not solved the civil action ( ... ) ” .


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

The applicants , PERSON , who was born in DATE and Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , are NORP nationals who live in PERSON . They were represented before the ORG by lawyers of PERSON ORG ( in collaboration with NGO Astreya ) , an NGO based in the GPE with a representative office in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .

The application was communicated on DATE , and on DATE the parties exchanged their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application . On DATE the ORG requested additional factual information from the parties .

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

The applicants are the wife and the son of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .

At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was driving with Mr PERSON ( also known as ORG ) ORG through the PERSON ( sometimes spelled PERSON ) settlement in PERSON when their car was stopped in FAC by a group of CARDINAL military servicemen who had been taken there in CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) and CARDINAL ORG vehicles . It appeared that the servicemen were manning a mobile military checkpoint .

In the presence of a number of local residents both men were blindfolded and taken away in the APCs . The applicants’ relative , Mr PERSON , has not been seen since then .

NORP In response to the ORG ’s request for a copy of the investigation file , the ORG submitted copies of the documents from the initial criminal case file no . DATE ( in the documents submitted the number is also referred to as DATE ) that was opened into the abduction of just Mr Bakayev . This file has CARDINAL pages and chronicles the steps taken by the investigation DATE and DATE . In response to the ORG ’s request for additional information , the ORG submitted copies of the updated criminal case file no . DATE , which contains CARDINAL pages concerning the investigation into the abduction of both Mr Bakayev and Mr PERSON and chronicles the steps taken by the investigation between DATE and DATE . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .

On DATE PERSON complained to the prosecutor ’s office that her husband , Mr Bakayev , together with “ a man called PERSON ” had been abducted .

On DATE PERSON was questioned . She stated that her husband Mr Bakayev had been abducted by servicemen in CARDINAL APCs on the bridge in the GPE settlement .

On DATE the ORG town prosecutor ’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr Bakayev in response to his wife ’s complaint . The case file was given the number CARDINAL . The decision in this regard stated :

“ On TIME DATE PERSON and a man named PERSON were abducted on the bridge in the GPE settlement by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms driving CARDINAL APCs . The abduction of PERSON took place in the presence of civilians and military servicemen stationed in GPE ... ”

In their submission on the admissibility and merits of the case of DATE the applicants stated that they “ had been informed about it [ the decision to open criminal case no . DATE ] ” without specifying the date or the circumstances under which they were informed thereof .

’s abduction , whereas the relatives of Mr ORG had been informed thereof on DATE .

On DATE the investigators ordered the Zavodskoy district department of the interior ( “ Заводской районный отдел внутренних дел ” ) ( hereinafter the PERSON ) in PERSON to carry out operative search measures stating , amongst other things , the following :

“ The investigation established that ... PERSON and an unidentified person known as PERSON were taken away to an unknown destination by unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms in QUANTITY APCs . The abduction took place in the presence of civilians and servicemen stationed in the settlement of GPE , specifically , in the presence of serviceman A.E .... ”

NORP In DATE the investigators forwarded requests for information to various authorities , asking whether any special operations had been carried out on the date of the abduction of PERSON and if so , whether anyone had been detained . These requests did not yield any pertinent information .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . The suspension decision referred only to the abduction of Mr Bakayev ; it did not contain any references to the applicants’ relative Mr PERSON :

“ ... the present criminal case was opened on DATE in connection with the abduction on DATE of PERSON .

The preliminary investigation established that on TIME DATE unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms had detained Mr PERSON on the bridge in the GPE settlement and taken him to an unknown destination . His whereabouts have remained unknown since .

Taking into account that the time - limit for the preliminary investigation has been reached and all of the possible steps have been taken .... It has been decided to suspend the investigation in the criminal case ... ”

From the documents submitted by the parties it is apparent that DATE the applicants neither complained of PERSON PERSON abduction to PERSON nor did they maintain contact with the relatives of PERSON concerning the proceedings in criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE the first applicant contacted the investigators in criminal case no . DATE . She submitted a request that the investigations department of the PERSON district prosecutor ’s office in PERSON grant her victim status in the criminal case as follows :

“ ... On DATE my husband Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , was detained by armed men in military vehicles in FAC in LOC of Grozny . My husband disappeared thereafter . In connection with this , the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal case .

A long time has passed since the incident and I have started to doubt the effectiveness of the criminal investigation . I therefore decided to have recourse to the [ procedural ] rights given to victims in criminal proceedings under ORG DATE , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure and LAW ... However , neither I nor my relatives have been granted victim status in the criminal case . For that reason I have not been able to participate in the proceedings to the extent allowed by LAW ...

Mr PERSON is my husband . The crime committed against him has caused me psychological and material damage .

On the basis of the above I request that you :

Grant me victim status in the criminal case opened in connection with the disappearance of my husband PERSON ;

Inform me of the progress in the investigation of the criminal case ;

Resume the investigation if it has been suspended ;

Inform me of the results of the examination of the present request ... ”

On DATE the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was resumed . The decision stated :

“ ... On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were detained and taken away in CARDINAL APCs by unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms .

In connection with this , on DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW .

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended under part CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , that is to say for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE PERSON , the wife of the abducted PERSON , requested that the PERSON district investigations department grant her victim status in the criminal case .

In connection with the decision to grant PERSON victim status in the criminal proceedings and her questioning on the matter , it is necessary to resume the investigation in criminal case no . DATE ... ”

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned . She stated that on DATE her husband had left by car to do an errand , together with fellow villager PERSON , and had not returned home . DATE she had found out from her neighbours that her husband Mr PERSON and PERSON had been abducted by armed men in APCs .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant requested the investigators to grant her access to the contents of criminal case file no . DATE . It is unclear whether any reply was given to her request .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on DATE . The proceedings were subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions ; the last suspension took place on DATE . The proceedings are still pending .

CARDINAL районный отдел внутренних дел “ ) ( hereinafter the Oktyabrskiy ROVD ) in ORG to produce a copy of the first applicant ’s complaint concerning Mr PERSON abduction , which had been lodged on DATE . In reply the police informed the applicants that the document no longer existed as the relevant registration logs had been destroyed following expiry of the time - limit for their storage .

DATE ’s abduction to the police in DATE , but had no written proof of the complaint . She also stated that at DATE she had been approached by a military officer who had threatened to harm her and her relatives if she were to continue searching for her husband . Out of fear for her life and that of her relatives , on an unspecified date in DATE she had moved to GPE and only returned to GPE in DATE . The applicants did not enclose any documents substantiating this information other than the first applicant ’s written statement dated DATE .

According to the ORG , the applicants did not lodge any official complaints concerning their relative ’s alleged abduction within the framework of the criminal case .

On DATE the NORP district court of PERSON granted the first applicant ’s request and declared Mr PERSON a missing person as of DATE . The decision , which made no reference to proceedings in criminal case no . DATE and referred only to proceedings in criminal case no . ORG , stated :

“ ... PERSON requested the court to declare her husband a missing person on the basis of the following :

At TIME on DATE her husband PERSON had left home and had not returned . She has had no news of him since that date . In connection with this occurrence , the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor ’s office in ORG had opened a criminal case . The measures taken by the investigation failed to produce results . According to Ms GPE , the declaration of her husband as a missing person is a prerequisite for preparing a pension application in respect of the loss of a breadwinner ...

According to the information statement of the Oktyabrskiy district department of the interior in ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , [ on an unspecified date ] the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . ORG in connection with the abduction of Mr PERSON on DATE . The whereabouts of Mr PERSON remain unknown .

Considering that the establishment of the above fact is of legal significance for the applicant , and that it is impossible otherwise , non - judicially , to establish that fact , on the basis of the above the court , decides ...

To recognise Mr PERSON as a missing person as of DATE ... ”

The decision became final on DATE .

According to the ORG ’s submission of DATE , criminal case no . CARDINAL was erroneously mentioned in the court ’s decision as the criminal case concerning the investigation of the abduction of another person , Mr PERSON