Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

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

The applicants are :

The applicants live in GPE .

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

At the material time the first applicant was the Chairman of ORG , a NORP non - governmental human rights organisation . The second applicant was a reporter for ORG , a NORP television company . The third applicant was a camera operator and the fourth applicant an assistant camera operator with ORG .

Following the death of a DATE boy , PERSON , in the course of a counter - terrorist operation in the GPE settlement in Ingushetia on DATE , a protest meeting against abuse of authority by the security forces was planned in GPE , the capital of Ingushetia , for DATE . On DATE REN TV dispatched a team consisting of the second , third and fourth applicants in order to cover the protest planned for CARDINAL DATE . The first applicant was on a business trip in GPE at that time . All CARDINAL applicants were staying in LOC in GPE ( “ the hotel ” ) .

On DATE at TIME the first applicant returned to the hotel from ORG ’s office in GPE . TIME ( at TIME ) , CARDINAL men in balaclava masks and camouflage uniforms , armed with automatic weapons , burst into his room . The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents . They pointed their guns at the first applicant , ordered him to lie face down on the floor and asked him the reason for his trip to Ingushetia . The applicant explained that he worked for the NGO and had arrived in GPE to monitor the human rights situation in Ingushetia . The men collected all of the applicant ’s belongings and put them into a bag . He attempted to protest but was kicked in the ribs by one of the intruders . They then pulled a black plastic bag over his head , took him out of the hotel and forced him into a minibus .

On TIME , the CARDINAL other applicants returned to the hotel from ORG , where they had been working on a news story . At CARDINAL p.m. they gathered in the second applicant ’s room . At TIME men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms , armed with automatic weapons , burst into the room . Without any explanation , they forced the third and fourth applicants to the floor , kicked them , and put black plastic bags over their heads . These CARDINAL applicants were then taken down to the lobby and put into the minibus with the first applicant . Despite the bag over his head , the third applicant was able to see other figures dressed in camouflage uniforms in the lobby .

When the intruders broke into the second applicant ’s room , they struck him on the shoulder with a rifle butt so that he fell onto the floor . They then ordered him to look away . In reply to his question as to their identities , the men kicked him and hit him with their rifle butts . CARDINAL of the intruders told him in unaccented NORP that they were from ORG . They collected his personal belongings and his professional equipment and put it into bags . They then pulled a black plastic bag over his head and , continuing to beat him , took him out of the room and down to the minibus .

At the time of their abduction , the applicants were wearing jeans or tracksuit trousers , shirts , T - shirts and slippers and were taken out as they were . The abductors did not allow them to put on shoes or warm clothing .

In the minibus one of the abductors asked the second , third and fourth applicants who they were . They introduced themselves . The first applicant also started to explain who he was but was silenced with a number of blows . CARDINAL of the abductors told the driver that the hotel had been “ mopped - up ” and ordered him to drive off . The applicants were ordered to be silent and to keep their heads bowed ; the abductors threatened them with beatings and promised they would shoot them if they did not obey . All of the abductors spoke unaccented NORP .

The minibus drove for TIME . Initially it went through the streets of GPE . The windows were not obscured and through the bags on their heads the applicants could see the streetlights and the headlights of passing cars . According to the third applicant , the bag on his head was loose enough to enable him to see that their abductors did not put aside their weapons during the drive . He concluded they must be ORG agents .

NORP Some time later the minibus drove along a country road and stopped in a snow - covered field . The applicants were taken out of the minibus one by one and beaten up with kicks and blows from rifle butts . One of the abductors told the applicants that they would be shot and ordered his colleagues to fetch silencers from the bus . The applicants thought that they were going to be executed on the spot . One of the abductors checked the minibus , but could not find the silencers . The abductors ordered the applicants to remain on the ground until they had left , threatened to kill them if they returned to Ingushetia in future , and drove off . The applicants took the bags off their heads and saw a white PERSON minibus driving away .

The applicants ran off in the opposite direction , fearing that their abductors would return to execute them . Walking in the snow , they suffered from the cold as they had neither overcoats nor proper shoes . After TIME they reached the GPE settlement , where they knocked on local ORG doors asking for help . After some time one of the residents let them in and called the police . The police arrived and took the applicants to the local police station , where they were provided with medical assistance .

Early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were taken by the police to ORG of the Interior ( PERSON внутренних дел Назрановского района ( ORG ) ) ( the Nazran ROVD ) and made statements concerning their abduction and illtreatment . The second applicant asked a police officer whether he knew who was responsible for the incident . In reply the officer did not say anything but typed on his mobile phone CARDINAL letters “ ORG ” ( ORG ) , ( ORG ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE ORG ( “ the investigative committee ” ) opened an investigation into the incident under LAW , CARDINAL of LAW ( violation of privacy , obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists , and robbery ) and opened criminal case no . DATE . In the decision it was stated that the crime in respect of the applicants had been committed by unidentified perpetrators who had used violence .

On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , who stated that at TIME on DATE he and the third and fourth applicants had been in the second applicant ’s room at the hotel when a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL armed men in balaclava masks and camouflage uniforms had forced their way into the room . The men had been armed with automatic rifles . The applicants thought that they must be from a law - enforcement agency . The intruders had searched the room and collected the applicants’ personal belongings and their professional equipment . They had then blindfolded the applicants , taken them down to the minibus and driven somewhere . They had stopped in a field and had subjected the applicants to severe beatings with rifle butts and kicks , as a result of which the second applicant had twice lost consciousness . Thereafter the abductors had driven off and the CARDINAL applicants had spoken to the first applicant , who introduced himself as Mr PERSON . They had then made their way to the nearest village , where they had gone to the local police station , and from there they had been taken back to GPE .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators questioned the third and fourth applicants , whose statements were similar to that of the second applicant . In particular , both applicants also stated that the abductors , who had also beaten them unconscious , must have been from a law - enforcement agency .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators questioned the first applicant ’s colleague , PERSON , who stated that she had been called to come to the police station , where she had found the first applicant covered in bruises and hematomas , without an overcoat , and wearing slippers and dirty clothing .

On DATE the investigators questioned the hotel duty manager , PERSON , who stated that their hotel was usually guarded by police security officers , but they had been called off duty at TIME on DATE when a Deputy Minister of ORG had telephoned the hotel and ordered them to leave the LOC . CARDINAL other Deputy Minister of ORG had been staying at the hotel at the material time and his security officers had also been called off . The witness had asked the second Deputy Minister whether he had been aware that his security had been called off , and he had confirmed that he had been aware of it . At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms had arrived at the hotel in a white PERSON minibus without registration plates . The men had told her that they had been conducting an identity check within the framework of counter - terrorist operation and ordered her to provide the registration log of the hotel ’s guests . Having checked the names , some of the men had gone upstairs whilst others had stayed in the lobby and held the staff at gunpoint . The intruders , who had communicated among themselves by gestures , had taken her and the other staff CARDINAL mobile telephones and removed the sim - cards and the batteries . TIME later the intruders who had gone upstairs had returned with CARDINAL blindfolded men with sacks over their heads and had put the CARDINAL men into the white minibus and driven off . The witness had not gone into the rooms raided by the intruders , but had been able to see from the corridor that everything inside the rooms had been turned upside - down .

On DATE the investigators twice questioned the hotel ’s managing director , PERSON , who stated that he had not been at the hotel during the events in question , but had been informed by his staff about the abduction of CARDINAL of the hotel ’s guests .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the account of the events submitted to the ORG . In addition , he stated that at TIME on DATE someone had knocked at the door of his room and a female voice asked him to open . After that , the intruders had rushed in and subjected him to questioning about the purpose of his visit to ORG . They had thrown him to the floor , collected his mobile telephone , documents and other belongings , blindfolded him with a black sack and taken him out to the minibus , where he had seen the other applicants . The abductors had then driven for TIME , stopped and taken the CARDINAL men out and assaulted them with kicks and rifle butts . The abductors had threatened to kill the first applicant ; during the beating , the sack over his head had been displaced and he had seen the abductors and their vehicle . The abductors had left the applicants lying in the field in the cold , with no warm clothing , and had driven off having told them not to return to their region .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , whose statement was similar to the CARDINAL given previously and to the account before the ORG . He additionally stated that he was sure that the abductors , who had acted as a well - organised professional group , must have been agents of a police special task unit . During their search of his room , one of the abductors had told him that they were from the police and that they would take him to the police station . The applicant also provided the investigators with a list of items stolen by the abductors , including his personal belongings , cash , passport , professional equipment , and credit cards and stated that the overall monetary value of his stolen items amounted to MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and that of the stolen company ’s equipment to CARDINAL RUB ( CARDINAL ORG ) .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the third applicant , whose statement was similar to the account before the ORG . He also stated that the abductors , who had acted as a well - organised professional group , had beaten him and the other applicants severely , and that he had lost consciousness at least once . He also provided the investigators with a list of items stolen by the abductors , including his personal belongings , cash , documents and professional equipment .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the fourth applicant , whose statement was similar to the account before the ORG . He also stated that the abductors , who had acted as a well - organised professional group , had beaten him and the other applicants severely , and that when he had been taken out to the ORG minibus , the first applicant had already been there . He also provided the investigators with a list of items stolen by the abductors , including his personal belongings , cash , documents and professional equipment .

On DATE the investigators questioned police sergeant PERSON , who stated that on TIME of CARDINAL DATE he and CARDINAL other police officers , ORG , DATE and Kh . T. , were on their regular duty at the hotel , where they had been assigned to ensure the safety of the hotel guests in addition to the hotel ’s own security service . The police at the hotel worked in groups of CARDINAL officers , in TIME shifts , starting at TIME DATE . In addition to the police presence at the hotel , the administrator also had a special button to call the police in case of emergency . At TIME on DATE the administrator had told them that Deputy Minister of PERSON . had telephoned . Officer PERSON had spoken to the Deputy Minister , who had ordered the officers to leave the hotel and go to the building of ORG . The witness and his colleagues had gone to ORG , where Colonel PERSON . had told them to remain , without giving any explanation . At TIME on the following morning , the CARDINAL officers had been dismissed from their shift and gone home . According to the witness , he had learnt of the applicants’ abduction from hotel staff DATE after the event . Prior to DATE their security team had never been called off duty from the hotel .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the hotel security guard , Mr PERSON . , who stated that on the evening of CARDINAL DATE he had been on duty at the hotel with his colleague PERSON . The hotel ’s security service worked in teams of CARDINAL guards in QUANTITY shifts . A team of QUANTITY police officers had also guarded the hotel . CARDINAL deputy Ministers of the Interior of Ingushetia had been staying at the hotel . The hotel ’s lobby was equipped with ORG cameras . At CARDINAL p.m. the police officers had left the hotel , which they had never done before . At TIME , as he was locking the back door , he had seen a group of CARDINAL armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms who had ordered him and his partner to stand up against the wall . The witness had thought that the men must have been a police special forces unit conducting a special operation . The men had searched them and taken them into the hotel lobby , where there were CARDINAL more armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms holding at gunpoint the duty manager , PERSON , and restaurant employees ORG and PERSON . The men had behaved like a special forces unit during a special operation ; in unaccented NORP they had ordered everyone to lie down on the floor , be quiet and not to move . They had not beaten anyone . At TIME they had left . The witness had not seen whether the intruders had taken anyone with them . He stressed that he had been certain that the intruders must have been law - enforcement agents . It was only on DATE that he had learnt that the intruders had abducted the applicants .

On DATE the investigators questioned the other security guard who had been on duty at the hotel on the evening of DATE , PERSON . His statement was similar to that of his colleague PERSON . and he also provided a detailed description of the intruders’ firearms and stated that they had acted under a chain of command . The intruders had guarded all the exits and entrances to the hotel , the stairs and the elevator . Then they had taken his and the CARDINAL mobile telephones , removed the batteries and sim - cards and thrown them onto the floor . While they had been held at gunpoint in the lobby , some of the women had started crying and panicking . CARDINAL of the intruders , who had acted like the CARDINAL in charge , had told them in unaccented NORP that they just needed to check something and would then leave . The witness emphasised that the intruders had acted as a well - organised group and that they must have been a highly - trained special police unit . The intruders had spent TIME at the hotel . After their departure , he had learnt that they had taken away the applicants .

On DATE the investigators questioned the managing director of the hotel ’s restaurant , Mr T.Ga . , who stated that at CARDINAL p.m. on DATE he had just gone down from the restaurant into the lobby with his colleagues PERSON and PERSON . when CARDINAL men armed with machine guns , wearing balaclavas and camouflage uniforms , had run up to them and ordered them by gesturing to lie down on the floor and not to move . CARDINAL more intruders had already been in the lobby ; they had not spoken among themselves and had communicated by gesturing . Both of the hotel security guards were already lying on the floor . The intruders had taken his mobile telephone and removed its sim - card and battery .

On DATE the investigators questioned police officer PERSON , who made a statement about the events similar to that given by his colleague , sergeant PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition he stated that he and his colleagues had been providing security for the hotel ’s residents , including the Deputy Ministers of the Interior Selivanov and PERSON , who were in residence there at the time . At TIME on DATE a duty officer from ORG had arrived at the hotel and told them that a Deputy Minister of the ORG had ordered the security team to leave the hotel and go to ORG building . The witness had refused to do so , as there had been no orders from his superior officers to this effect . Then , TIME , the Deputy Minister of the ORG in charge of the borders , PERSON . , had phoned the hotel and ordered the police security group to go to ORG to secure its LOC . The witness and his colleagues had spent TIME there and it was not until TIME that he had learnt about the applicants’ abduction from the hotel .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators also questioned the police officers PERSON . T. and A.M. , whose statements were similar to those of their colleagues FAC ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE above ) .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the hotel ’s cook and a waitress , PERSON . and ORG , whose statements were similar to that of Mr PERSON . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , both women stated that they had seen the applicants being taken away by the intruders and that the applicants , who had had black sacks over their heads , had not been wearing outdoor shoes or warm clothing . In addition , ORG had seen the abductors’ white PERSON minibus without official registration plates .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the hotel ’s administrator , PERSON , who reiterated her earlier statement ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) and added that the intruders had told her that they had come to conduct an identity check and were from the anti - terrorist unit of the police . They refused to let her see their service documents . Some of the intruders had stayed in the lobby while others had ordered her to go to the first applicant ’s room to ask him to open the door , which she had done . Later , she had seen the men take the applicant outside and had seen their white minibus . She also stated that she was now not sure whether the intruders had in fact been from a law - enforcement agency and that she did not remember whether anyone had called off the QUANTITY police officers who had been on duty at the hotel on DATE .

On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL police officers from the GPE police station and CARDINAL officers from the ORG district police station whose statements concerning the circumstances of the applicants’ arrival at the police station in TIME of DATE were similar to the applicants’ account before the ORG .

On DATE the investigators questioned ORG Deputy Minister of ORG . , who stated that he was in charge of the security of the administrative border of ORG . To his knowledge , the hotel ’s police security service had consisted of officers from ORG , in view of the fact that high - ranking law - enforcement officials were staying at the hotel , including CARDINAL Deputy Ministers of the ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE . He had called the police officers off duty from the hotel on the evening of DATE as there had been a threat of attacks on the building of ORG and the officers had therefore been needed elsewhere . He had not known that on that date the applicants had been staying at the hotel and learnt of their abduction and beating only the following morning when he read the police service incidents report .

On DATE the investigators questioned Deputy Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia Mr PERSON , who stated that he had been resident in the hotel since DATE . On TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been in his room , had not heard anything and had not seen the police security guards that TIME . He had been unaware of the reasons for the PERSON recall from the hotel and learnt of the applicants’ abduction and ill - treatment only DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned First Deputy Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia Mr S. Seliverstov , whose statement was similar to that given by PERSON ( see the paragraph above ) .

On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned QUANTITY police officers , who stated that on DATE they had manned various checkpoints on the motorway between GPE and GPE , on the roads between GPE and the GPE settlement , and in the vicinity of the local airport . They did not recall the white PERSON minibus with abductors passing through their checkpoint due to the large number of similar vehicles going through DATE , but said that any vehicle of that type passing through in TIME should have been stopped and registered in the log .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON A.Ge . , both of whom stated that they had been present during the crimescene examination on DATE at the hotel and that during the examination they had not seen any ORG cameras on its LOC .

On DATE the investigators questioned the hotel manager Ms L.T , who stated that she had not been at the hotel on DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON . NORP , who stated that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been at home in the ORG district of GPE when at TIME CARDINAL men had knocked at his door . The men , who were not wearing warm clothing , had traces of beatings and were suffering from the cold ; they had told him that they had been abducted from GPE , beaten and left in the fields near the village . He had let the men in and then had gone to the GPE police station to report the incident .

On various dates in DATE the investigators also questioned several witnesses in GPE whom the applicants had asked for help on TIME CARDINAL DATE and who had refused to open the door .

On various dates DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL employees of the school situated near the hotel . The persons questioned were primarily teachers or administrators . All of them gave similar statements to the effect that they worked at the school during DATE , that they had therefore not witnessed the events late at TIME on DATE and had learnt about them some time later . None of the school ’s security guards or night watchmen was questioned .

On DATE the investigators granted each of the applicants victim status in the criminal case . In the decision they listed the items of their professional equipment and personal belongings taken by the perpetrators , including cash , credit cards , mobile phones , clothes , a laptop , tape recorder , service identity cards and a digital camera .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators ordered a forensic expert examination of each of the applicants . On DATE the medical forensic examiner issued report no . CARDINAL , which described the numerous bruises and hematomas received by the third applicant as being ones of a “ light degree of gravity ” . The same report described the injuries of the second applicant as unsuitable for forensic categorisation due to the absence of a chest X - ray and conclusions of other medical specialists . As for the injuries of the first and fourth applicants , they did not qualify for a degree of gravity , there being a “ lack of lasting impact on his health ” .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene at the hotel , collected some fingerprints and ordered an expert forensic examination thereof . No other evidence was found . On DATE the experts concluded that the fingerprints were not suitable for examination .

On DATE the applicants left for GPE , where on CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was admitted to hospital and received medical treatment in connection with his injuries , which included cerebral concussion . He was discharged from hospital on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the investigators seized and examined the registration log of the hotel guests .

On DATE the head of the ORG investigative committee issued instructions for the investigators , ordering them to take these steps , amongst others :

“ [ ... ] CARDINAL ) to identify and question the Deputy Minister of the ORG who , according to the statement of PERSON , telephoned the hotel at TIME and recalled the police security officers ; [ ... ]

CARDINAL ) to identify the police officers who had manned the checkpoints on motorway “ GPE ” on DATE and question them about the passage of the PERSON minibus and examine the passing vehicles’ registration logs ; [ ... ]

CARDINAL ) to identify persons who had been staying at the hotel at the material time and question them about the events ; [ ... ]

CARDINAL ) to establish whether there were ORG cameras inside and outside the hotel and examine their contents ; [ ... ] ”

On DATE the investigators took fingerprints from CARDINAL employees of the hotel for comparative forensic examination of the fingerprints collected at the crime scene .

On DATE the investigators examined the registration log of vehicles passing the Volga-CARDINAL checkpoint during DATE . No passage of a PERSON minibus on DATE was recorded .

On DATE the GPE town police department replied to the investigators that there had been no ORG cameras in the vicinity of the crime scene .

On DATE the ORG Minister of the Interior , Colonel PERSON , wrote to the investigators , stating that on DATE his Deputies PERSON and Mr GPE , as well as a number of other police officers from other regions of GPE had been staying at the hotel . They had all “ been resting in their rooms ” at the time of the abduction and had no pertinent information to offer the investigation .

On DATE the first applicant asked the investigators to change the legal classification of the crimes committed against him and the other applicants to that of “ exceeding official powers ” , a crime that is committed by ORG agents and punishable under LAW . In particular , he stated that within the scope of their official powers , the perpetrators had been able to unlawfully break into the applicants’ rooms , search them , take away their property , deprive them of liberty and subject them to ill - treatment .

On DATE the investigators rejected the request as unsubstantiated , referring to the lack of evidence of the involvement of ORG agents in the incident .

On DATE the investigators asked the hotel to inform them whether any ORG cameras capable of recording had been in use on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the hotel replied that there had been “ no working ORG cameras ” on their LOC on the dates in question .

On DATE the investigators again examined the crime scene at the hotel . No evidence was collected .

On DATE the investigators requested the permission of ORG to obtain a list of the mobile telephone calls made TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE in the vicinity of the hotel . Permission was granted on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the preliminary investigation was suspended for failure to identity the perpetrators .

On DATE the head of ORG overruled the decision to suspend proceedings as premature and unsubstantiated and ordered that the investigators take such additional steps as were possible even in the absence of identified perpetrators .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the head of LOC of ORG , alleging that the crime against him and the other applicants had been perpetrated by ORG agents but that the investigation was not taking any steps to examine this theory . He requested that the theory of ORG agents’ involvement be examined . In particular , he pointed out the following facts :

- due to the security threats in the region at the material time , the hotel was usually guarded by several police officers . However , TIME prior to the abduction , the police officers had been recalled by their superior and a vehicle had been despatched to pick them up and take them to another location . The police officers had therefore been removed from the hotel in order not to create obstacles for the applicants’ abduction ;

The applicant asked that his request be included in the investigation file , but received no reply .

On DATE the first applicant requested permission to have access to the investigation file .

On DATE the investigators granted the request in part , namely in respect of the records of investigative actions which had been carried out with the applicants’ participation and the investigator ’s decisions to order forensic examinations and expert reports . Access to the rest of the file ’s contents was refused .

On DATE the first applicant appealed against the above refusal . On DATE the ORG in ORG dismissed the complaint , stating that victims in criminal proceedings could familiarise themselves with the entire contents of the investigation file only after completion of the investigation . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .

On DATE the first applicant asked the investigators to inform him of the progress in the criminal proceedings . On DATE they replied that the investigation had been suspended on DATE .

On DATE the investigators familiarised the first applicant with the conclusions of the forensic medical examination . He pointed out that in addition to the bruises and hematomas received as the result of the beating by the abductors , he had been subjected for TIME to extremely cold temperatures while wearing only the very light clothing in which he had been taken from the hotel .

DATE . On DATE the investigation was again suspended .

On DATE the first applicant ’s lawyer requested access to the entire contents of the investigation file . On DATE he was allowed to familiarise himself only with documents concerning the investigative steps taken with his participation .

On DATE the Interim Deputy Head of ORG overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated and ordered that it be resumed and the investigators take additional steps .

On DATE the investigators requested that the Interim Deputy Prosecutor of Ingushetia order the police to take steps to examine the theory of the involvement of ORG agents in the applicants’ abduction and ill - treatment .

On DATE the investigators issued an official statement addressed to the Minister of the ORG criticising the failure of the police to take the steps necessary to identify the perpetrators of the applicants’ abduction . The document stated :

“ ... from the very beginning of the investigation no operational search information of relevance and importance has been provided [ to the investigators ] regarding the identities of the possible culprits .

Such violations of the procedure committed by the operational officers of the police create obstacles for the full , thorough and objective investigation .... the facts stated demonstrate the ORG police ’s complete ignorance in respect of the requirements of criminal procedure , their lack of discipline and the absence of any control over their work by the senior officers .

There can be no change in this unhealthy situation as regards the operational units of ORG [ the police ] when it comes to the execution of the ORG lawful requests without your personal intervention . Your intervention could change the basis of the operational search ORG attitude to the execution of their tasks ... ”

On CARDINAL DATE the Head of ORG of ORG replied to the investigators , stating that as the result of their criticism they had conducted an internal inquiry and implemented various disciplinary measures against the officers responsible for their failure to take the necessary steps .

On CARDINAL DATE the hotel ’s administration replied to the ORG request of DATE , stating that on DATE there had been no ORG cameras on their LOC .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was suspended again . The proceedings are still pending .

DATE . The Government did not contest the factual circumstances of the events as presented by the applicants . They added only that at the material time CARDINAL Deputy Ministers of the ORG had been residing at the hotel . In addition to PERSON and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were also staying there .

In their submission before the ORG on DATE the ORG stated that “ it has been positively confirmed that on DATE [ the applicants ] were subjected to ill - treatment by unidentified perpetrators . There is no information showing that the crime was committed by representatives of the law - enforcement agencies or other ORG agents ” .

In reply to the ORG ’s request for a copy of the investigation file , the ORG furnished its contents , amounting to CARDINAL pages . According to the applicants , the documents submitted did not contain copies of the transcripts of the questioning of the first applicant , in which he had stressed the involvement of ORG agents in the abduction and ill - treatment .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE she got married and gave birth to her first daughter . In DATE she gave birth to her second daughter .

The applicant ’s relationship with her husband deteriorated and in DATE she and her daughters moved into a house rented by her husband in the village of GPE . Her husband visited his daughters from time to time .

NORP In DATE or DATE the applicant ’s husband took the children back to ORG . The applicant was left alone .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG ( “ the psychiatric hospital ” ) , a ORG - run institution . According to the medical records , the applicant was brought by ambulance since she was in a reactive state and showed signs of mental disorder .

Soon after her admission to the psychiatric hospital , the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and given treatment .

DATE the applicant unsuccessfully and repeatedly asked to be discharged from the psychiatric hospital and lodged complaints about her internment . During that time the applicant was provided with neuroleptic treatment .

On DATE the applicant escaped from the psychiatric hospital and found shelter with some acquaintances . By that time she was divorced .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , she was admitted to ORG for in - patient psychiatric assessment . According to the medical records , during the applicant ’s stay in the municipal hospital she did not take any medicine ; discussions with psychiatrists were the only treatment .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from that hospital with the conclusion that her mental health was normal .

Subsequently , the applicant re - established contact with her children and started living with them .

Following the applicant ’s complaint , on CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against PERSON , the applicant ’s doctor , on suspicion of unlawful placement of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital , an offence under LAW of DATE .

On DATE an expert panel conducted a forensic psychiatric examination and found that the applicant was not suffering from any mental illness . It further concluded that the applicant ’s admission to the psychiatric hospital on DATE might have been necessitated by her state of health ; however , during her stay in the psychiatric hospital she had been wrongly diagnosed , she had not been assessed comprehensively , and she had not been provided with correct medical treatment from the outset , in DATE .

On DATE the expert panel additionally concluded that the applicant could have been discharged from the psychiatric hospital on CARDINAL DATE on the basis of her discharge request , since her mental state had not suggested that she had posed a danger to herself or to the others .

On DATE the applicant was recognised as a civil claimant within the framework of the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the charges against P. were classified as negligence in the performance of official duties which resulted in grave consequences for the applicant .

On DATE P. was committed to stand trial in ORG .

On DATE the case file was destroyed in a fire at the court house .

On DATE the court remitted the case to the prosecutor ’s office for supplementary investigation .

On DATE the case was referred back to the court .

DATE and DATE some hearings were scheduled , but for various reasons none of them took place .

On DATE , in response to a complaint from the applicant , ORG asked the President of ORG to expedite the examination of the case , considering it to be unreasonably protracted .

On DATE the ORG ordered the investigating authorities to carry out a further psychiatric assessment of the applicant .

On DATE the investigating authorities ordered a psychiatric assessment of the applicant .

On DATE the case was referred back to the court without this assessment having been carried out .

On DATE the applicant , having regard to the fact that the case - file had been destroyed by fire in DATE , lodged another civil claim with the ORG seeking damages from P. and the psychiatric hospital for her unjustified psychiatric hospitalisation .

On DATE , at P. ’s request , ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings as time - barred .

The applicant appealed , alleging , in particular , that the impugned decision had been unlawful and that the examination of the case had been unreasonably protracted by the authorities . She further complained that the trial court had not examined her civil claim .

On DATE ORG upheld the court decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered a separate ruling , drawing the attention of ORG to the omissions by ORG which had resulted in the protracted examination of the applicant ’s case . It noted , in particular , that DATE and DATE there had been an unjustifiable number of adjournments of the hearings and that there had been an unjustifiable DATE period of inactivity pending a forensic assessment which was never carried out .

The applicant appealed on points of law against the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings , raising the same arguments as in her appeal . She asserted that the courts had failed to determine her civil claim .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal on points of law .

In DATE the applicant instituted separate civil proceedings against P. and the psychiatric hospital , claiming CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) from P. and LAW from the psychiatric hospital by way of compensation for the damage sustained as a result of her unjustified hospitalisation . She alleged , in particular , that the DATE stay in the psychiatric hospital had caused her severe mental and physical suffering . She argued that she had constantly felt debased and treated like a deficient human being , whose opinion was of no value . In addition , she had been subjected to involuntary medical interventions . Furthermore , the applicant ’s private and family life had been ruined .

On DATE ORG of ORG found that on DATE the applicant had been admitted to hospital lawfully given the signs of mental disorder . It further found that during her stay in hospital , the applicant ’s medical doctor , P. , had been at fault for breaching a number of legal provisions governing psychiatric assistance . The court established that the requisite procedures for involuntary hospitalisation had not been followed ; by contrast , if the applicant had been hospitalised as voluntarily patient , she ought to have been discharged on the basis of her request ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The court also noted that the applicant had repeatedly asked to be discharged and concluded that she could have been discharged as early as DATE on the basis of such a request . The court found that as a result of those breaches of domestic law , the applicant had been wrongly diagnosed and mistakenly treated for a considerable time in the psychiatric hospital .

The court further noted that during her wrongful stay in the psychiatric hospital the applicant had been unable to freely exercise her rights or manage her life . It therefore concluded that the applicant had sustained non - pecuniary damage which should be compensated by the psychiatric hospital employing P. In reaching that conclusion , the court also referred to the criminal case against P. and the evidence collected by the investigating authorities in that case .

The court awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage noting that , in determining that amount , it had taken into account the length of the applicant ’s unjustified stay in the psychiatric hospital , the nature and the scope of physical and mental suffering , the enforced changes in her lifestyle , and the restrictions imposed on her rights as a citizen to freely arrange her life and take care of her own health .

NORP The applicant appealed , seeking a higher amount of damages from both defendants .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

The applicant did not lodge a further appeal before ORG .


CASE OF KARAJANOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was a high - ranking official during the communist era . At the time of the events , he neither held a public office nor was a candidate for such an office .

On the basis of a request by a third person and of its own motion , on DATE ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) established in lustration proceedings that the applicant had collaborated with ORG security bodies . Relying on CARDINAL files from ORG , it “ established indisputably that [ the applicant ] gave information ... to ORG security bodies about individuals ... namely ... he collaborated with the ORG security services in a conscious , secret , organised and continuous manner as a secret collaborator . ” Accordingly , it held that the applicant had fulfilled the condition for restricting his candidacy to or performance of public office . The ORG based its decision on the relevant provisions of DATE LAW ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and LAW .

Referring to a report registered as file no . DATE , the Commission established that in DATE , after he had visited his brother in GPE , the applicant had given information about his brother , his brother ’s wife and other people to ORG security bodies . He also had provided information about other people after he had returned to the city of ORG . The Commission established that the applicant had been engaged by the security services before leaving for GPE and that they had intended to continue collaborating with the applicant . The file further noted that in DATE the applicant had shared his impressions about his stay in GPE with his father .

On the basis of documents in another file , file no . CARDINAL , the Commission established that the applicant , while editor - in - chief of a newspaper in DATE and afterwards , had provided information to the security services about a colleague , the colleague ’s articles and his relations with other people .

The DATE ’s decision was published on its website on DATE , in accordance with sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It contained information about the applicant ’s place of birth , his personal identification number and the positions he had held . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision in ORG , arguing that the ORG ’s findings based on file no . DATE had been wrong since the file had obviously been about another person with the same name and not him . He submitted several documents to show that the lustration decision had been a result of mistaken identity . The documents were his birth certificate , which showed a date of birth that was different from the CARDINAL in file no . DATE ; an inheritance decision , certified by a notary public , attesting that the applicant had a sister rather than a brother ; his notarised military card , which showed that in DATE he had been doing military service in GPE ; and a death certificate showing that his father had died in DATE . He argued that he had never visited GPE and had lived since DATE in GPE . He also challenged the veracity and authenticity of the documents in file no . CARDINAL and denied that he had ever collaborated with or provided any information about any colleague to the ORG security services , let alone that any such collaboration had met the criteria specified in CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In that connection , he submitted that none of the documents in the file had been signed by him . Lastly , he complained about the fact that the decision on the Commission ’s website had included his father ’s name , despite the fact that LAW made no provision for the release of such information . He argued that his reputation , dignity , personal information and integrity had been compromised .

In a hearing held in private on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . The court held that the Commission had correctly established the facts and applied the relevant law . The court stated :

“ [ the ORG ] established that there were documents in ORG created by the ORG security bodies confirming that [ the applicant ] had collaborated with ORG security bodies in a conscious , secret , organised and continuous manner and that he had obtained favours when being promoted , as set out in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of [ LAW ] ... The Commission correctly established that [ the files in question ] contained information provided by [ the applicant ] , which had been used to restrict and violate the human rights and freedoms of other people on political and ideological grounds ... ”

As regards the applicant ’s complaints of mistaken identity , the court stated :

“ ... the ORG ’s decision clearly established collaboration with security bodies by [ the applicant ] , by determining his personal identification number , place of birth and the office that he had held . ”

As to his arguments that the Commission had erred in finding “ conscious , secret , organised and continuous collaboration ” with ORG security bodies , the court held :

“ [ the applicant ] was entitled to obtain access to the documents attesting to his collaboration . In case of doubts about their veracity , he could have initiated proceedings before the competent court to prove their inaccuracy , before the impugned decision had been delivered .

In addition , the court considers that the above ORG security service documents on [ the applicant ’s ] secret collaboration were drawn up on the basis of the rules and regulations of those bodies . ”

Lastly , the court stated :

“ The court made its decision at a hearing held in private because ORG had correctly established the relevant facts [ on the basis of written material ] and [ the applicant ] had not submitted any evidence that led to different facts . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He reiterated the complaints raised in his action in ORG and submitted that the latter court had not provided any reasoning regarding his complaint that the publication of the ORG ’s decision on its website had violated his right to respect for his private and family life , his reputation and dignity . It had also disregarded his evidence that file no.CARDINAL had not concerned him , but a person with the same name , which had led to facts being wrongly established . He stated that the court had also relied on evidence adduced by the Commission without analysing it in adversarial proceedings in the presence of the applicant or any other relevant witness or expert . He complained that the lower authorities had not explained why they had considered that he had collaborated with the security bodies in an intentional , secret , organised and continuous manner , as set out in LAW . He further complained about the lack of an oral hearing before ORG and argued that there had been no statutory provision allowing him to request such a hearing . Lastly , he contested ORG explanation about the possible legal avenues he could have used to challenge the veracity of the documents in file no . CARDINAL . In that connection , he submitted that before DATE he had not been aware of the existence of documents about his alleged secret collaboration with the security services . Furthermore , his arguments on that point should have been dealt with in the impugned proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the lower court ’s decision . It found no grounds to depart from the facts as they had been established and the reasons given by the Commission and ORG . It stated :

“ ORG only checks whether or not there was collaboration with the security services ; there are no adversarial proceedings , the documents created and held by the [ security services ] are regarded as facts ... ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Pavlina Panova;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants , PERSON and PERSON PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

The first applicant gave birth to the second applicant in DATE and shortly thereafter ended her relationship with the child ’s father , GPE , to whom she was never married .

In DATE the GPE ORG confirmed an agreement reached between the first applicant and GPE According to the agreement , the first applicant was to exercise the parental rights related to the upbringing and DATE care of the child , and GPE was to see his daughter under a “ free access regime ” , which included the right to see the child in private as often as he wished after informing the mother and not less than two weekends a month , and DATE during the child ’s DATE .

The first applicant got married to a NORP - NORP citizen in GPE , GPE , GPE , on DATE . She left her job in GPE in DATE with a view to joining her husband in GPE .

During CARDINAL periods , DATE to CARDINAL DATE and DATE to DATE , the first applicant stayed in GPE with her husband . During the rest of the time , she lived in GPE with her daughter . On DATE , the first applicant settled in GPE .

On DATE the first applicant brought proceedings before ORG under LAW DATE . She sought a decision from the court , in the absence of the father ’s consent , to allow the child to be issued with a passport and to travel abroad to join her in GPE .

The GPE ORG granted her claim on DATE . The court found that the possibility for the second applicant to travel abroad would enrich her life and stimulate her personal development . It considered that ORG ’s refusal to allow her to travel was provoked by his personal interest which should not be allowed to bear negatively on the child ’s rights , especially since GPE could seek protection of his rights in separate court proceedings . Nothing in the mother ’s personality and demeanour was found to represent a risk for the child ’s well - being . Guided by the primary interest of the child , the court recalled LAW on LAW , which was ratified by GPE , and held that the second applicant had the right to move about freely , including to leave her country .

Upon an appeal by ORG , the ORG confirmed the lower court ’s findings on DATE . It found that , as the first applicant had married and settled in GPE , not allowing the daughter to join her there would impede the mother ’s ability to act as her primary carer . Those were the terms reached in the DATE court agreement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which ORG had not sought to amend at any time . During the periods which the mother had spent in GPE , the second applicant had been primarily cared for in GPE by the first applicant ’s parents . When the second applicant had stayed at GPE ’s house , her daily care had been carried out by the child ’s aunt and grandmother . A report by the social services favoured the second applicant ’s free travel with her mother and found that both mother and child had strong emotional ties to each other . The child had specifically asked to live with her mother in GPE and to visit her father in GPE during the holidays . The decision of QUANTITY DATE of ORG was not appealed against and became enforceable on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant requested the police to issue a passport to her daughter . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG ” section in ORG refused to issue a passport to the girl . He referred to the absence of a document giving the father ’s consent .

The first applicant applied for judicial review , challenging the police refusal . On DATE , ORG , examining the application under LAW , quashed as unlawful the police refusal to issue a passport to the second applicant . The court observed that the absence of both GPE agreement to the issuing of a passport to their child was not sufficient grounds to justify a refusal . It went on to say that the police should have carried out an in - depth analysis of the specific circumstances of the applicants’ case , being guided in their assessment primarily by the interests of the child . The court returned the case to the police with specific instructions as to how to apply the law when examining the applicant ’s request .

I.P. appealed against the decision of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the findings of GPE that the police refusal of CARDINAL DATE had to be quashed as unlawful . It further noted that , on the question whether or not to issue a passport to a child , the police enjoyed decisionmaking discretion ( оперативна самостоятелност ) pursuant to section CARDINAL

In the meantime , on DATE the first applicant again applied for a passport for her daughter . On DATE the police refused to issue a passport , referring to the fact that the GPE ORG decision of DATE in respect of replacing the father ’s agreement was not final as ORG had appealed against it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the first applicant asked once again that a passport be issued to her daughter , referring to the CARDINAL judgments of the administrative courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the police informed both the border authorities and the applicant that a procedure was underway for the refusal of a passport to the second applicant . On DATE the police refused the ORG request because of the absence of written consent from the child ’s father . In doing so , the head of ORG referred to the social services’ latest conclusions that , while the first applicant spent time in GPE , the second applicant was well cared for in GPE by the first applicant ’s parents . In addition , he found that the girl ’s departure from GPE would impede the possibility for the father effectively to exercise his access rights and that would affect his relationship with the child in an irreparable manner . The police concluded that the competent body to decide on the relationship between the father and the child was the relevant district court in accordance with Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW DATE .

After the judgment giving permission to the second applicant ’s travel became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the police issued a passport to the child on DATE . She obtained a visa and left for GPE with her mother in DATE .

In DATE the first applicant brought proceedings for damages under LAW , as related to the ORG and ORG DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) , on behalf of herself and her daughter . The applicants claimed they had both suffered as a result of the unlawful refusals by the police to issue a passport despite the findings of the administrative courts which had quashed the first refusal . They also claimed damages as a result of the unlawful failure of the police to comply in good time with the final decision of ORG of DATE . The applicants invoked a breach of LAW in respect of them both and of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW in respect of the second applicant .

The Sofia City Administrative Court partly upheld their claim on CARDINAL DATE . The court found that ORG had to pay : ( a ) QUANTITY ( ORG ) to the first applicant and around EUR CARDINAL to the second applicant , for non - pecuniary damage stemming from the quashing as unlawful of the police refusal of CARDINAL DATE to issue a passport to the second applicant ; and ( b ) around EUR CARDINAL for nonpecuniary damage to each applicant , as a result of the police unlawful failure to decide within the statutory DATE deadline on the applicant ’s request for a passport made on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below and CARDINAL above ) . The court also awarded around EUR CARDINAL to the applicants for costs and expenses , to be paid by ORG .

On appeal by the applicants and cross - appeal by ORG , on DATE ORG ( ORG ) quashed the lower court ’s decision in its entirety . It found that the appeal by the applicants had been inadmissible as lodged out of time . Ruling on the appeal by the police , the court observed that the first condition for the application of the Act DATE was not present , given that a court had not quashed as unlawful an administrative act as required by LAW DATE . It then went on to say that the lower administrative court had not decided the matter in the place of the police . Instead , it had returned the case to the interior authorities with instructions as to how to apply the law . The head of ORG had then given ample reasons for his refusal of CARDINAL DATE to issue a passport . The applicants had not appealed against that refusal . As to the second condition under LAW DATE , namely a causal link between the failure by the police to decide in good time on the request for a passport and the damage suffered by the applicants , the court found that such a causal link was missing . More specifically , when deciding whether to issue passports to minors , the police did not enjoy discretion in respect of how to apply the law . Instead , the police were bound to act within the remit of “ subordinate competence ” ( обвързана компетентност ) . It meant that , in their decision - making process , the police did not need to analyse the circumstances of each case , but rather only had to check whether the conditions listed in law were present or not . Consequently , the ORG concluded in its final decision of CARDINAL DATE , the damage caused to the applicants did not stem from the police refusal to issue a passport to the second applicant . The police had acted in application of the law . The fact that a passport had not been issued was entirely the result of the first applicant ’s failure to submit either an authorisation by the father or by the relevant district court for the second applicant ’s travel , as required by law .

According to LAW DATE , in force until DATE , parental rights and obligations were to be exercised by both parents together as well as separately by each parent . In case the parents disagreed , the relevant district court resolved the disagreement after hearing both parents and , if need be , the child . The court ’s decision was subject to appeal .

NORP Under the new Family Code CARDINAL , LAW provides that parental rights and obligations are exercised following an agreement between the parents . If the parents disagreed , they could bring the matter before the district court whose decision is subject to appeal . LAW provides that , in cases where the parents do not live together , if they disagreed on questions related to the child , the disagreement is to be decided by the district court whose decision is subject to appeal . As of DATE , a new Article CARDINALa specifically provides that the questions related to a minor ’s travel abroad and to the issuing to him or her of identity papers , are to be decided jointly by both parents . If the parents disagreed , the issue is to be settled by the district court of the minor ’s place of residence .

According to section DATE , as worded at the time of the events , an application for the issuing of a passport or another identity document for a minor was to be made “ in person ” ( added in DATE ) and by the minor ’s parents or guardians . The police have to issue a passport within DATE of such an application ( section DATE ) .

According to section CARDINAL ) , in force as of DATE , every NORP citizen has the right to leave the country , including with an identity card , and to return crossing the borders of GPE with the member States of ORG .

According to section DATE , as in force since DATE , every NORP citizen has the right to leave the country and return to it with a passport . That right is subject only to such limitations as may be necessary for the protection of national security , public order , people ’s health or the rights and freedoms of others .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the police may refuse to allow a minor to leave the country in the absence of a written consent for that of his or her parents . If the parents disagreed , LAW DATE specifically provided between DATE and DATE that the matter was decided in accordance with LAW ; as of DATE , the matter is to be decided in accordance with LAW .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , adopted in DATE , provided that , in cases where the authorisation of CARDINAL parent for the issuing of passport to a minor was missing , such an application had to be submitted together with CARDINAL of the following documents : a judicial decision allowing the issuing of a passport which had become enforceable ; a judicial decision depriving the missing parent of his or her parental rights ; or , a death certificate of the parent who had not given his agreement .

According to LAW , individual administrative acts are subject to judicial review as regards their lawfulness . Judicial review proceedings in respect of administrative acts are CARDINAL - instance proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ) and they suspend the enforcement of the appealed administrative acts ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

According to Article CARDINAL , individuals or legal persons may bring claims for compensation for damage caused to them by an unlawful act or failure to act by an administrative body , when that act or failure to act have been quashed by a court . For questions not covered by this PERSON , the ORG and ORG DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) is applied .

LAW DATE provides that the ORG and municipalities are liable for damage caused to private individuals and legal entities as a result of unlawful decisions , acts or omissions by their own authorities or officials while discharging their administrative duties . Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that compensation is due for all damage which is the direct and proximate result of the unlawful act or omission . The ORG ’s liability is strict , i.e. no fault is required on the part of the civil servants in the commission of the unlawful acts .

ORG held in a DATE decision concerning a request for the issuing of a passport to a minor ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. на ORG по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , NORP г. о. ) that all questions related to the exercise of parental rights had to be decided by the relevant district court if the parents could not reach an agreement . In subsequent decisions ( реш. от CARDINAL г. на ORG по к. д. № DATE , V г. о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на ORG по ч. гр. д. № CARDINAL , III г. о. ; MONEY CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на ORG по гр. д. № DATE ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL на ORG по ч. гр. д. № CARDINAL , IV г. о. ) ORG reaffirmed its findings that questions related to the travel of minors abroad had to be decided specifically by the civil courts in accordance with LAW DATE , and not by the police following the administrative procedure under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . In doing so , the highest national court referred to its constant practice in respect of questions related to the exercise of parental rights . In CARDINAL of the above - mentioned decisions ( see реш. от CARDINAL г. на ORG по к. д. № DATE , V г. о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на ORG по ч. гр. д. № CARDINAL , III г. о. ) ORG quashed the findings to the contrary of CARDINAL regional courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

CARDINAL regional courts held in DATE and DATE respectively that claims under LAW DATE were inadmissible because there existed an administrative procedure which was sufficient for obtaining a passport for a minor even where CARDINAL of the parents disagreed ( see реш. на окр. съд Хасково от CARDINAL г. по ORG д. № DATE ; and опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на окр. съд PERSON по ч. PERSON д. № CARDINAL ) .

In a legal column , published on DATE in a DATE newspaper with national circulation called “ TIME ” , a ORG judge advised that a claim under LAW DATE , seeking the permission for a minor ’s travel abroad with CARDINAL parent only , was inadmissible and the correct avenue for settling the matter was via the administrative procedure under LAW DATE .

The Convention is in force in respect of GPE as of QUANTITY DATE . It provides as follows :

“ The objects of the present Convention are :

( a ) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any ORG ; and

( b ) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of CARDINAL ORG are effectively respected in GPE . ”

“ The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where :

( a ) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person , an institution or any other body , either jointly or alone , under the law of the ORG in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention ; and

( b ) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised , either jointly or alone , or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention . ”

The rights of custody mentioned in sub - paragraph ( a ) above may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision , or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that ORG . ”

The Convention was ratified by GPE on DATE . It provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In all actions concerning children , whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions , courts of law , administrative authorities or legislative bodies , the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration . ”

“ CARDINAL . In accordance with the obligation of GPE Parties under article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a ORG for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by GPE Parties in a positive , humane and expeditious manner . GPE Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family .

A child whose parents reside in different GPE shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis , save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents . Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of GPE Parties under article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , GPE Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country , including their own , and to enter their own country . The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security , public order ( ordre public ) , public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention . ”

“ CARDINAL . DATE States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child . Parents or , as the case may be , legal guardians , have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child . The best interests of the child will be their basic concern . ”


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG - in - Office , located in GPE ( “ the LOC office ” ) , recruited the applicant as a local fixed - term staff member . She was assigned the tasks of an administrative and information assistant , such as drafting letters , providing interpretation and translation services , answering to telephone calls in the office , file keeping , making travelling arrangements for ORG the LOC and so on . According to the employment contact , the parties were entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally either by giving DATE prior notice or upon the completion of ORG mandate .

On DATE the applicant , who was pregnant at that time , requested maternity leave from DATE to DATE , which was granted by her employer .

On DATE the mission coordinator of ORG notified the applicant of their intention to terminate the employment contract with her on DATE by sending her the requisite DATE prior notice , as stipulated in the employment contract .

On DATE the applicant filed a lawsuit against the OSCE GPE office with the Vake - Saburtalo Court , complaining that her dismissal had been contrary to LAW of GPE .

NORP In reply to the applicant ’s claim , on DATE ORG in GPE ( “ the GPE Office ” ) filed comments with the NORP - Saburtalo ORG in GPE , arguing that the NORP courts lacked jurisdiction over employment disputes between ORG and its local staff members . In support , it referred to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government of GPE and ORG ( “ the Memorandum ” ) on DATE , according to which the members of ORG enjoyed “ immunity from legal process in the host country ” . Consequently , the dispute arising from the job termination notice of DATE which was clearly issued by ORG in the performance of their official duties could not be adjudicated under the NORP law . ORG invited the court to address ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) for any further clarification on the matter .

On DATE the ORG was involved CARDINAL party to the proceedings .

NORP Since neither the respondent , ORG , nor the third party , the ORG , was present at the main hearing of DATE , the ORG delivered a judgment by default on DATE . The court first reasoned that international organisations could not be said to enjoy immunity from legal process with respect to labour disputes with local staff . Consequently , the NORP legislation should be held applicable to the dispute between the applicant and ORG . ORG found that the applicant ’s dismissal was clearly in breach of LAW , restoring her to the position of administrative assistant and ordering the respondent organisation to compensate her for the loss of salary from the date of her unlawful dismissal .

The judgment of DATE was never appealed by either the applicant or the respondent ORG , whilst the ORG did not have standing to lodge an appeal as a third party , and thus became binding .

On DATE the NORP - Saburtalo ORG issued an enforcement writ . It was sent to ORG .

By a notification of DATE , a bailiff invited ORG to enforce voluntarily the judgment of DATE within DATE . In reply , ORG addressed to the ORG a note verbale stating that “ as the [ OSCE GPE ] Office does not intend to comply with the decision wrongly made by the court , the ORG would be grateful if the ORG would ensure , in accordance with the relevant international law , that the [ OSCE GPE ] Office will not be subject to any execution measures . ”

On DATE ORG invited ORG to terminate the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the bailiff returned the enforcement writ to the applicant , officially informing her about the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings . The notification mentioned that , in view of the debtor ’s immunity from legal process in GPE , it was impossible either to hold its administration criminally liable for the non - enforcement or to resort to any other measures of compulsory enforcement .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ The legislation of GPE conforms to universally recognised norms and principles of international law . International treaties or agreements concluded by GPE , if they do not contradict LAW and a constitutional agreement , take precedence over domestic normative acts . ”

Pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW , an “ international treaty ” was an international agreement concluded between the NORP State and other ORG ) or international organization(s ) in written form and governed by international law , whether embodied in a single instrument or in CARDINAL or more related instruments and whatever was its particular designation .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW stated , similarly to LAW , that an international treaty , subject to its compliance with the country ’s LAW , should take precedence over domestic statutes .

Section CARDINAL of the Act specified that ORG could express its consent to be bound by an international treaty by several means , including by the signature of its representative .

Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY provided that ORG was under the obligation to abide by the commitments provided for by an international treaty in good faith , and that its executive branch of power , notably the Government represented through its various ORG , was required to supervise that the approved international agreements were duly enforced throughout the territory of ORG .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ The administration [ of an organisation ] shall not dismiss a pregnant woman , or a woman who has a child under DATE , unless this organisation ... has been completely liquidated ... ”

The Memorandum was signed on behalf of ORG by the Minister of ORG on DATE . LAW provided :

“ ORG will be manned by ORG and his ORG who shall enjoy in full the legal capacity as provided for in the Provisions Concerning the Legal Capacity of the CSCE Institutions and Privileges and Immunities ( Rome Council CARDINAL no . CARDINAL ) , and with local staff to insure its proper functioning . ”

LAW of the above - mentioned ORG no . CARDINAL read as follows :

“ Members of ORG the ORG enjoy immunity from legal process , even after the termination of their mission , in respect of acts , including words spoken or written , performed by them in the exercise of their functions . ”

On DATE ORG , a major decision - making body of the Organisation , adopted , by its Decision no . CARDINAL , an amended version of the OSCE ’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules for ORG Staff . This official document set out the conditions of service and the basic duties , obligations and rights of staff members of the OSCE , and , according to its LAW ( c ) and CARDINAL applied “ to all staff members of the OSCE Institutions holding a fixed - term appointment ” , including staff occupying local posts .

Regulations CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL and Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL contained rules on examination of employment related disputes between coordinators of the various ORG and fixed - term staff members . In particular , CARDINAL procedures for examination of such disputes were provided for : a purely administrative DATE the so - called “ internal appeals procedures ” – and a quasi - judicial , arbitration instance – the so - called “ external appeals procedures ” . Those LAW read , in their most relevant parts , as follows :

Regulation DATE ORG

“ The Secretary General shall establish , in consultation with the other ORG , an administrative procedure with staff participation to advise the Secretary General and ORG concerned in the event of any appeal by a staff member against an administrative decision in which the staff member alleges non - observance of the terms of his / her appointment . ”

Rule DATE ORG

( a ) In the event of an appeal by a staff member under Staff Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL , an ORG shall be established to advise the Secretary General and ORG concerned regarding that appeal .

( b ) ORG shall consist of CARDINAL members as follows :

( i ) A Chairman designated by the Secretary General , after consultation with the Head of Institution concerned and ORG ;

( ii ) CARDINAL member appointed by ORG concerned ;

( iii ) CARDINAL member appointed by ORG . ... ”

Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL – ORG

( a ) Further to the procedure established in Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL , a staff member shall have a right of final appeal to a Panel of ORG against an administrative decision directly affecting him / her in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the ORG to be established by ORG . ...

( b ) The Panel of Adjudicators shall be appointed by the Chairman of ORG from a roster to which all participating states are invited to nominate candidates , and shall carry out its functions in accordance with the Terms of Reference referred to above . ”

Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL – Adjudication

“ ( a ) Staff members shall have the right to appeal to a Panel of ORG after compliance with the internal appeals procedure set forth in Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

( b ) A staff member may , in agreement with the Secretary General or ORG concerned , waive the jurisdiction of ORG and appeal directly to ORG . ”

On DATE , during its ORG plenary meeting , ORG examined and endorsed a report containing a study and recommendations on the question of legal capacity of the ORG and the granting of privileges and immunities to the organisation in the various participating GPE .

Relevant excerpts from the report read as follows :

“ DATE . [ T]absence of a constituent treaty has not prevented participating ORG from endowing the ORG over DATE with the attributes usually regarded as those of an international organisation : ...

( b ) The ORG is no longer only a vehicle for meetings and the organisation of cooperation between GPE ; it acts as an organisation with functions of its own entrusted to it by participating GPE . For doctrine , such autonomy presupposes that the organisation has the necessary capacity to carry out its mandate at the international level and under public international law , i.e. that the organisation has become a subject of public international law . ...

( e ) The staff of the ORG are employed by the organisation ( international and local staff ) and not participating GPE . ...

( f ) The ORG has also established an internal legal structure and norms ( Staff Regulations and Rules , Financial Regulations , Financial Instructions , ORG ) , and its own mechanism for settling employment disputes through a ORG rather than national courts . ”


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

Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company with its seat in Bad PERSON , producing building materials of concrete and using crushed stones ( Schotter ) for this purpose .

On DATE the applicant company requested ORG ( PERSON ) to issue a licence under LAW ( wasserrechtliche GPE ) for dredging ( GPE ) on its plot .

On DATE ORG decided to issue the licence for dredging and imposed certain conditions .

On DATE TIME , the owner of the NORP mineral water spring appealed against this decision , claiming that the dredging had a negative impact on DATE .

On DATE ORG für Land- PERSON , PERSON ) ( “ the Ministry ” ) ordered the applicant company to submit a plan of the projected dredging area and of all the springs and wells concerned .

On DATE the applicant company submitted some plans but stated that it had no knowledge about the location of the spring and PERSON refused to provide the necessary information .

On DATE the applicant company submitted further plans to the authorities .

On DATE the ORG served an expert opinion on the applicant company . According to this expert opinion the information submitted by the applicant company was not sufficient to prove that there was no negative impact of dredging on the springs . The applicant company was requested to comment hereon .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of ORG and remitted it back to the first instance authority on the grounds that the applicant company had failed to provide sufficient information in order to assess a possible negative impact on DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to submit the missing documents .

On DATE the applicant company submitted a private expert opinion to the Regional Governor .

On DATE an oral hearing was held .

On DATE ORG Governor again issued the requested licence for dredging and imposed certain conditions .

On DATE H.P. , the Bad GPE municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company appealed against this decision to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant company submitted written comments to the Ministry .

On DATE the applicant company complained to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) about the administration ’s failure to decide ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG ordered the Ministry to decide within DATE .

On DATE the ORG transmitted another expert ’s opinion to the parties and requested the applicant company to submit the missing documents .

On DATE the Ministry requested ORG to extend the deadline for the decision to DATE as the proceedings were not finalised .

On DATE the applicant company commented on the recently obtained expert opinion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) claiming , inter alia , that the Ministry failed to determine which missing documents were to be submitted .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the deadline for ORG until DATE .

On DATE the applicant company submitted another private expert opinion to the Ministry .

On DATE the Ministry rejected the requested dredging licence on the grounds that the applicant company had failed to submit all the requested documents .

On DATE ORG closed the proceedings on the applicant company ’s complaint about the administration ’s failure to decide ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered the reimbursement of the costs related to this complaint .

On DATE the applicant company lodged a complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG asked ORG and the other parties to submit written observations within DATE .

On DATE TIME , the Bad NORP municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company submitted their written observations .

The ORG submitted written observations which were served on the applicant company on DATE .

On DATE the applicant company put forward further submissions in reply to the ORG ’s observations ; PERSON , the Bad GPE municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company replied hereto on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision by ORG as it was not clarified which documents the applicant company had to submit .

On DATE the applicant company submitted CARDINAL other private expert opinions to ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant company lodged another application against the administration ’s failure to decide with ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the Ministry to decide within DATE .

On DATE the ORG submitted another expert opinion to the parties and asked the applicant company to submit certain precisely mentioned documents within DATE .

On DATE the applicant company referred to the already submitted private expert opinions and claimed that the mentioned documents were not necessary . In addition , it requested to appoint another expert . Nonetheless , it submitted a supplementary expert opinion .

On DATE ORG extended to DATE the deadline for ORG to decide .

On DATE the Ministry requested the Bad GPE municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company ( PERSON appeal had meanwhile been considered to be withdrawn ) to submit written observations on the documents recently transmitted by the applicant company .

On DATE the Bad NORP municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company submitted their written observations , to which the applicant company replied on DATE .

On DATE the applicant company submitted another private expert opinion to the Ministry in compliance with the ORG ’s request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the Ministry communicated a further expert opinion for the applicant company ’s information .

On DATE the Ministry dismissed the appeals and therefore permitted the requested dredging by the applicant company . This decision , served on the applicant company on DATE , became final .

On DATE ORG closed the proceedings on the applicant company ’s second complaint about the administration ’s failure to decide ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered the reimbursement of the costs related to this complaint .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

A CARDINAL - roomed flat at CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL GPE , GPE , was owned by the city . PERSON and her son resided there as tenants under the social housing agreement with the city .

On DATE PERSON died . On DATE the municipal authorities de - registered her tenancy .

On DATE PERSON ’s son died . On an unspecified date the municipal authorities de - registered his tenancy .

On an unspecified date ORG submitted a forged copy of a court judgment to ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) recognising her right to reside in the flat and on DATE ORG entered into a social housing lease agreement with ORG and her family .

On DATE ORG transferred the title to the flat to A. , her husband and her daughter under the privatisation scheme .

On DATE and her husband sold the flat to the applicant . On DATE the city registration body issued a certificate confirming the first applicant ’s title to the flat . The applicants moved into the flat and resided there .

On an unspecified date ORG obtained information that the court judgment submitted by PERSON might have been forged and on DATE the housing authorities asked the prosecutor ’s office to conduct a relevant inquiry .

On DATE the Nikulinskiy ORG of GPE invalidated the social housing lease agreement of DATE and the privatisation agreement of CARDINAL DATE .

On an unspecified date ORG brought an action against the applicants seeking the transfer of the flat to the city and the applicants’ eviction .

On DATE ORG granted ORG claims in full . The court ruled that the case fell under one of the CARDINAL exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’s title , which required that precedence be given to the previous owner who had been deprived of the property against his or her will . The first applicant ’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to GPE . The court also ordered the applicants’ eviction . The applicants appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s additional time to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The applicants were required to vacate the flat by DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the said decision on appeal .

The applicants continued to reside in the flat . On DATE ORG entered into a housing agreement with them in respect of the flat for a term of DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Trial within a reasonable time)

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


CASE OF MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment) (Russia)

Dmitry Dedov;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicants , who are police officers , were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and second applicants live in GPE and PERSON and the remaining applicants live in PERSON .

On DATE officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who were conducting a criminal investigation in PERSON , were arrested by the secret service of the self - proclaimed “ GPE ” ( “ FAC ) . During their arrest they managed to call the PERSON police station .

The other CARDINAL applicants ( officers GPE and PERSON ) went to PERSON to clarify the reasons for the arrest of their colleagues , but were also arrested upon their arrival .

The applicants were placed in FAC ( PERSON ) .

On DATE officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON were released without charge and without any explanation for their arrest .

On DATE officer PERSON was allegedly beaten up and injected with an unknown substance , which rendered him unconscious for DATE . After his release he was admitted for in - patient treatment in the hospital of ORG of GPE , where he was diagnosedwith , inter alia , concussion .

On DATE ORG issued a warrant for officer PERSON to be detained for DATE . On DATE the “ FAC authorities released officers PERSON and PERSON . The head of the “ FAC secret service declared in an interview that the officers had been released after NORP authorities had “ given assurances ” that GPE authorities would not “ kidnap people ” in the “ FAC .

The applicants were accused in the “ FAC media of being members of “ black squadrons ” created for the purpose of kidnapping politicians and other persons causing nuisance to the GPE authorities . According to the applicants , during their detention they were questioned by the “ FAC secret service and forced to declare that in PERSON they had been trying to kidnap “ FAC politicians . Officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON were allegedly beaten on the soles of their feet and threatened with the killing of members of their families , as well as with being transferred to cells occupied by common criminals , where they would be ill - treated or even killed .

Officer PERSON was allegedly subjected to so - called “ NORP hanging ” for TIME and was taken to his cell unconscious thereafter .

The applicants described as follows their conditions of detention at FAC . The cells in which they had been held had been in the basement and had not had access to natural light . In the absence of ventilation and because of overcrowding it had been difficult to breathe . Officer PERSON submits that he was detained in the same cell as that in which Mr PERSON had been detained ( for more details see ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) .

During their detention the applicants did not have any DATE exercise and were not given access to a shower ; they could not receive parcels containing food from their relatives , they did not have bed linen and they were not allowed to be seen by doctors .

After the applicants’ release the NORP authorities initiated CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings concerning their unlawful detention and their alleged ill - treatment while in detention . However , DATE the investigation was discontinued .

The applicants were also subjected to medical check - ups , which found no traces of violence on their bodies . CARDINAL applicant , PERSON , was found to be suffering from the consequences of concussion .


CASE OF KÉZDISZENTKERESZTI BÍRÓ v. HUNGARY

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request for an increase of her disability pension before ORG ( ORG ) , which dismissed her claim on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision on CARDINAL DATE . The Central - Hungarian Regional Insurance Directorate acting as a second - instance authority upheld the first - instance decision on ORG CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant sought the judicial review of the second - instance decision within the statutory time - limit . She submitted her statement of claim on CARDINAL DATE to the first - instance administrative authority , in line with the applicable procedural laws .

In the absence of any developments in the case , the applicant notified the first - instance administrative authority about upholding her claim on DATE . The first - instance administrative authority subsequently forwarded the applicant ’s statement of claim to ORG on DATE .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim on DATE .