CASE OF MARIYA ALEKHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom

The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The third applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The applicants live in GPE .

The CARDINAL applicants are members of a NORP feminist punk band , ORG . The applicants founded ORG in DATE . The group carried out a series of impromptu performances of their songs Release the Cobblestones , PERSON , ORG and PERSON Himself in various public areas in GPE , such as a subway station , the roof of a tram , on top of a booth and in a shop window .

According to the applicants , their actions were a response to the ongoing political process in GPE and the highly critical opinion which representatives of ORG , including its leader PERSON , had expressed about large - scale street protests in GPE and many other NORP cities against the results of the parliamentary elections of DATE . They were also protesting against the participation of PERSON in the presidential election that was due in DATE .

The applicants argued that their songs contained “ clear and strongly worded political messages critical of the government and expressing support for feminism , the rights of minorities and the ongoing political protests ” . The group performed in disguise , with its members wearing brightly coloured balaclavas and dresses , in various public places selected to enhance their message .

Following a performance of Release the Cobblestones in DATE , several ORG members , including the second and third applicants , were arrested and fined under LAW for organising and holding an unauthorised assembly . On DATE CARDINAL members of the group performed on the roof of a building at temporary detention facility no . CARDINAL in GPE . The performance was allegedly held in support of protesters who had been arrested and placed in that facility for taking part in street protests in GPE on DATE . The band performed Death to Prison , Freedom to Protest and hung a banner saying “ Freedom to NORP ” on it from the roof of the building . No attempt to arrest the band was made . A video of the performance was published on the Internet .

On DATE members of the band held a performance entitled Riot in GPE at GPE ’s FAC . The group sang a song called PERSON Himself . All CARDINAL members of the band were arrested and fined under LAW , the same as before .

NORP In response to the public support and endorsement provided by PERSON to PERSON , members of ORG wrote a protest song called Punk Prayer PERSON , PERSON . A translation of the lyrics is as follows :

PERSON Mother of God , drive PERSON away

PERSON away , drive PERSON away

Black robe , golden epaulettes

Parishioners crawl to bow

The phantom of liberty is in heaven

NORP pride sent to LOC in chains

The head of the ORG , their chief saint ,

Leads protesters to prison under escort

So as not to offend His ORG

Women must give birth and love

Shit , shit , holy shit !

Shit , shit , holy shit !

PERSON , Mother of God , become a feminist

Become a feminist , become a feminist

The ORG ’s praise of rotten dictators

The cross - bearer procession of black limousines

A teacher - preacher will meet you at school

Go to class - bring him cash !

ORG believes in GPE

Bitch , better believe in God instead

The girdle of the Virgin ca n’t replace rallies

PERSON , Mother of God , is with us in protest !

PERSON , Mother of God , drive PERSON away

PERSON away , drive PERSON away . ”

On DATE a performance of the song was carried out at FAC in the district of GPE in GPE . The applicants and CARDINAL other members of the band wearing brightly coloured balaclavas and dresses entered the cathedral , set up an amplifier , a microphone and a lamp for better lighting and performed the song while dancing . The performance was recorded on video . No complaint to the police was made in relation to that performance .

On DATE CARDINAL members of the band , including the CARDINAL applicants , attempted to perform ORG PERSON , PERSON Away from the altar of GPE ’s NORP the Saviour Cathedral . No service was taking place , although a number of persons were inside the Cathedral . The band had invited journalists and media to the performance to gain publicity . The attempt was unsuccessful as cathedral guards quickly forced the band out , with the performance only lasting slightly over a minute .

NORP The events unfolded as follows . The CARDINAL members of the band , dressed in overcoats and carrying bags or backpacks , stepped over a low railing and ran up to the podium in front of the altar ( the soleas ) . After reaching the steps , the band removed their coats , showing their characteristic brightly coloured dresses underneath . They also put on coloured balaclavas . They placed their bags on the floor and started taking things out of them . At that moment the video recorded someone calling out for security and a security guard then ran up the steps to the band . The band member dressed in white , the third applicant , pulled a guitar from her bag and tried to put the strap over her shoulder . Another guard ran up to the second applicant and started pulling her away . Moments later the band started singing the song without any musical accompaniment . The guard let go of the second applicant and grabbed the third applicant by the arm , including her guitar , at the same time calling on his radio for help . The radio fell out of his hand but he did not let go of the third applicant and pushed her down the steps . While the third applicant was being pushed away by the guard , CARDINAL of the other band members continued singing and dancing without music . Words such as “ holy shit ” , “ congregation ” and “ in heaven ” were audible on the video recording . At the same time the second applicant was trying to set up a microphone and a music player . She managed to turn the player on and music started playing . A uniformed security guard grabbed the player and took it away . At the same time CARDINAL band members , including the first CARDINAL applicants , continued singing and dancing on the podium , kicking their legs in the air and throwing their arms around . CARDINAL cathedral employees grabbed the first applicant and another band member dressed in pink . She ran away from the security guard , while the second applicant kneeled down and started making the sign of the cross and praying . The band continued singing , kneeled down and started crossing themselves and praying .

Cathedral staff members escorted the band away from the altar . The video - recording showed that the last band member left the altar TIME and TIME after the beginning of the performance . The guards accompanied the band to the exit of the cathedral , making no attempt to stop them or the journalists from leaving .

A video containing footage of the band ’s performances of the song , both at FAC in GPE and at NORP FAC , was uploaded to PERSON .

On DATE a deputy director general of private security company ORG , Mr O. , complained to the head of the LOC police in GPE of “ a violation of public order ” by a group of unidentified people in NORP FAC . Mr O. stated that at TIME DATE unidentified individuals had screamed and danced on “ the premises of the cathedral ” , thus “ insulting the feelings of members of the church ” . The individuals had not responded to reprimands by churchgoers , clergymen or guards .

A similar complaint was lodged DATE by the acting director of the NORP ORG , PERSON called the applicants’ conduct disorderly , extremist and insulting to NORP churchgoers and ORG . PERSON also stated that the band ’s actions had been aimed at stirring up religious intolerance and hatred . Printouts of photographs of the band ’s performances and the full lyrics of Punk Prayer – Virgin Mary , PERSON Away , downloaded from the group ’s website , were attached to the complaint .

On DATE the police instituted criminal proceedings . Cathedral staff members and guards were questioned . They stated that their religious feelings had been offended by the incident and that they could identify CARDINAL of the band members as they had taken off their balaclavas during the performance .

On DATE the second applicant was arrested . The first applicant was apprehended DATE . They were charged with the aggravated offence of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred .

The third applicant was also stopped by the police in the street and taken in for questioning on DATE . She had no identification documents and did not provide her real name , instead identifying herself as PERSON . Her mobile telephone and a computer flash drive were seized and she was released after the interview .

On DATE ORG of GPE issued separate detention orders to remand the first CARDINAL applicants in custody until DATE . In terms of the circumstances precluding the application of a less stringent measure to the applicants , the court cited the gravity of the charges , the severity of the penalty they faced , the “ cynicism and insolence of the crime ” the applicants were charged with , their choice not to live at their places of permanent residence , their lack of permanent “ legal ” sources of income , the first applicant ’s failure to care for her child and the second applicant ’s right to move to and reside in GPE . It also cited the fact that certain members of ORG were still unidentified or on the run .

The detention orders became final on DATE , when ORG upheld them on appeal , fully endorsing ORG reasoning .

The third applicant was placed in custody on DATE by ORG after finally being identified by the police and charged with the same criminal offence as the first CARDINAL applicants . ORG found that the risks of the third applicant absconding , reoffending and perverting the course of justice warranted her detention . Those risks were linked by the court to the following considerations : the gravity of the charges , the severity of the penalty she faced , her unwillingness to identify other members of the band , her lack of a permanent legal source of income , and her use of an assumed identity while communicating with the police on previous occasions . The decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

By CARDINAL separate detention orders issued on DATE ORG further extended the applicants’ detention until DATE . Citing the grounds it had used to substantiate the need for the applicants’ placement in custody , ORG concluded that no new circumstances warranting their release had come to light . It also noted the first applicant ’s blanket refusal to confess to the offence with which she had been charged or to any other act prohibited by LAW . It also stated that the applicants’ arrests had only been possible due to searches conducted by the NORP police as it had not been possible to find them at their places of permanent residence .

On DATE ORG once again extended the applicants’ detention , citing the same reasons as in the previous detention orders . On DATE the ORG agreed that it was necessary to continue holding the applicants in custody .

In a pre - trial hearing on DATE ORG of GPE allowed an application by a prosecutor for a further extension of the applicants’ detention , finding that the circumstances which had initially called for their being held on remand had not changed . The applicants were to remain in custody until DATE . ORG dismissed the arguments the applicants put forward pertaining to their family situation ( the first CARDINAL applicants had young children ) , the fragile health of the second applicant , the fact that the CARDINAL applicants had registered their places of residence in GPE and that the criminal proceedings against them were already at a very advanced stage . The court also refused to accept personal written sureties given by CARDINAL individuals , including famous NORP actors , writers , film producers , journalists , businessmen , singers and politicians .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE , considering it lawful and well - founded .

In the meantime , investigators ordered expert opinions to determine whether the video - recording including the performance of Punk Prayer PERSON , PERSON downloaded from the Internet was motivated by religious hatred , whether the performance of the song at the cathedral could therefore amount to incitement of religious hatred , and whether it had been an attack on the religious feelings of NORP believers . In the first CARDINAL reports , commissioned by a ORG expert bureau and issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , CARDINAL experts answered in the negative to those questions . In particular , the experts concluded that the applicants’ actions on DATE at NORP ORG had not contained any signs of a call or an intention to incite religious hatred or enmity . The experts concluded that the applicants had not been violent or aggressive , had not called for violence in respect of any social or religious group and had not targeted or insulted any religious group .

A third expert opinion subsequently requested by the investigators from directly appointed individual experts produced an entirely different response . In a report issued on DATE CARDINAL experts – a professor from ORG , a professor at ORG , and the President of a regional NGO , ORG and Law – concluded that the performance and video had been motivated by religious hatred , in particular hatred and enmity towards NORP believers , and had insulted the religious feelings of such believers .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicants were committed to stand trial before ORG . The trial was closely followed by national and international media .

The trial court dismissed numerous complaints by the applicants related to the negative impact of security measures in place at the courthouse on their right to communicate freely with counsel and to prepare their defence . In particular , in applications to the trial court of DATE for time for a confidential meeting with their lawyers , they stated that confidential communication was impossible because of the presence of police officers and court ushers around the dock . The applicants raised the issue again in a similar application on DATE , which was repeated at a hearing on DATE .

The applicants provided the following description of the hearings . Throughout the trial they were held in an enclosed dock with glass walls and a tight - fitting door , which was commonly known as an “ aquarium ” . There was insufficient ventilation inside the glass dock and it was hard to breathe , given the high summer temperatures . A desk for the applicants’ lawyers was installed in front of the dock . There was always high security around the dock , which at times included CARDINAL armed police officers and a guard dog . Colour photographs of the courtroom submitted by the applicants show police officers and court ushers surrounding the dock , either behind or close to the defence lawyers’ desk . Some photographs show female police officers positioned between the ORG desk and the glass dock containing the applicants . The applicants had to use a small window measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY to communicate with their lawyers , which they had to bend down to use as it was only a QUANTITY off the ground . The applicants had to take turns to speak to their lawyers as the window was too small for all CARDINAL to use it simultaneously . According to the applicants , confidential communication with their defence team was impossible as a police officer always stood nearby monitoring their conversations and any documents which were passed between them . Furthermore , a dog was present in the courtroom , which was at times particularly disturbing as it had barked during the hearings and behaved restlessly .

According to the applicants , it was virtually impossible to communicate with their lawyers outside the courtroom as they were taken back to the detention facility at TIME , when it was too late to be allowed visitors .

NORP The lawyers applied several times to ORG for permission to hold confidential meetings with the applicants . The lawyers and applicants also sought an adjournment of the hearings to give the defence an opportunity to consult their clients in private , either in the courthouse or in the detention facility , but those requests were fruitless .

Similarly , the court dismissed applications to call the experts who had issued the CARDINAL expert reports or to call additional experts , including art historians and specialists in the fields of contemporary art and religious studies , who could have provided opinions on the nature of the performance on DATE . The defence ’s challenges to the third expert report issued on DATE were also unsuccessful .

According to the applicants , when there were hearings they were transported from the detention facility to court in a prison van : they were usually transported in a small vehicle when being taken to the courthouse in the morning and in a bigger one when being taken back to the detention facility in TIME . The bigger van consisted of CARDINAL long sections so men and women could be transported separately . The vans had CARDINAL or CARDINAL compartments separated by metal partitions , each designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmate . The common area of the vans was equipped with benches , while the roof was so low detainees could not stand up . The space in the common compartment of the smaller van was CARDINAL sq . m and was designed for CARDINAL people , while the space in the bigger van was QUANTITY m.

According to the applicants , they were transported in single - person compartments to their custody hearings and in common compartments later on . Most of the time the vans were overcrowded , with detainees sitting directly against each other , with squashed up legs and shoulders . The bigger vans transported CARDINAL detainees , making a number of stops at various GPE facilities to pick up detainees . The vans were sometimes so full that there was no place to sit . Smoking was not prohibited but many detainees did do so . The second and third applicant had severe headaches as a result of the conditions of transport .

The temperature in GPE at the time of the trial was as high as CARDINALoC , while inside the vans it reached CARDINAL The natural ventilation in the single - person compartments was insufficient and the system of forced ventilation was rarely switched on . When it was switched on , it was only for a very short time because of the noise it made and so it was hardly ever used . A fan was switched on during DATE but did not make the conditions of the cramped space any more bearable .

The journey to the courthouse usually took TIME , but could sometimes last as long as TIME . Detainees were not allowed to use the toilet unless the police van drove past ORG , where inmates were allowed to relieve themselves .

On DATE of court hearings the applicants were woken up at CARDINAL TIME to carry out the necessary procedures for leaving the facility and were only taken back to the detention facility TIME . The applicants missed mealtimes at the detention facility because of such early departures and late returns .

On leaving the detention facility in TIME they received a lunch box containing CARDINAL packets of dry biscuits ( for a total of CARDINAL each ) , CARDINAL packets of dry cereal , CARDINAL packet of dry soup and CARDINAL tea bags . However , it was impossible to use the soup and tea bags as hot water was only made available to them TIME before they were taken out of their cells to the courtroom , which was not enough time to eat .

The applicants were forbidden to have drinking water with them during the hearings : requests for short breaks to drink some water and use the toilet were regularly refused , which caused them physical suffering .

On DATE an ambulance was called twice to the court because the applicants became dizzy and had headaches owing to a lack of food , water , rest and sleep . They were both times found fit for trial .

The Government provided the following information concerning the vehicles in which the applicants had been transported to and from the courthouse :

It appears from the information provided by the ORG that DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants were transported between GPE ’s SIZO-CARDINAL remand prison and ORG twice a day for DATE . The trips lasted TIME . The trips back from the court lasted TIME .

According to the ORG , the daytime temperature in GPE in DATE and DATE only reached CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE and that , furthermore , the TIME and evenings , when the applicants were transported , were cooler than the temperature at TIME . All the vehicles underwent a technical check and were cleaned before departure . They were also disinfected once DATE . The passenger compartment had natural ventilation through windows and ventilation panes . The vehicles were also equipped with a system of forced ventilation . The passenger compartment had artificial lighting in the roof . The Government provided photographs of the vehicles and extracts from the vehicle logs to corroborate their assertion that the number of passengers never exceeded the upper limit on places given in the table in paragraph CARDINAL above . People transported in such vehicles could use toilets in courthouses that were on the PERSON route .

The Government submitted that the area at ORG where the applicants had been held before the hearings and during breaks consisted of CARDINAL cells equipped with benches and forced ventilation . A kettle had also been available to them . The Government provided reports by the officers on duty at ORG on the dates of the applicants’ hearings to corroborate their statement that the applicants had always been provided with a lunch box and boiling water when being transported to court .

On DATE the ORG found the CARDINAL applicants guilty under LAW of LAW Criminal Code of hooliganism for reasons of religious hatred and enmity and for reasons of hatred towards a particular social group . It found that they had committed the crime in a group , acting with premeditation and in concert , and sentenced each of them to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The trial court held that the applicants’ choice of venue and their apparent disregard for the cathedral ’s rules of conduct had demonstrated their enmity towards the feelings of NORP believers , and that the religious feelings of those present in the cathedral had therefore been offended . While also taking into account the video - recording of the song Punk Prayer – Virgin Mary , PERSON , ORG rejected the ORG arguments that their performance had been politically rather than religiously motivated . It stated that the applicants had not made any political statements during their performance on DATE .

The ORG based its findings on the testimony of a number of witnesses , including the cathedral employees and churchgoers present during the performance on DATE and others who , while not witnesses to the actual performance , had watched the video of Punk Prayer PERSON , PERSON Away on the Internet or had been present at the applicants’ performance at FAC in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The witnesses provided a description of the events on DATE or of the video and attested to having been insulted by the applicants’ actions . In addition , ORG referred to statements by representatives of various religions about the insulting nature of the applicants’ performance .

ORG also relied on the expert report issued on DATE , rejecting the first CARDINAL expert reports for the following reasons :

“ ... in light of the provisions of LAW incitement to hatred , enmity or disparagement , as can be seen from the questions put [ to the experts ] and the answers given by them .

Moreover , the expert opinions do not fulfil the requirements of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The reports lack any reference to the methods used during the examinations . The experts also exceeded the limits of the questions put before them ; they gave answers to questions which were not mentioned in the [ investigators’ ] decisions ordering the expert examinations . The reports do not provide a linguistic and psychological analysis of the lyrics of the song performed in GPE ORG , and the experts did not carry out a sentiment analysis and psychological assessment of the song ’s lyrics in relation to the place where the crime had been committed ( an NORP church ) . [ The experts ] examined the lyrics of the song selectively . Given the lack of a linguistic and psychological analysis of the lyrics of the song performed in NORP ORG , the experts made an unfounded and poorly reasoned conclusion , which runs counter to the testimony of the eyewitnesses , the victims of the crime , who expressed an extremely negative view of the events in NORP FAC and of the video - recording . ”

On the other hand , ORG found the expert report of CARDINAL DATE to be “ detailed , well founded and scientifically reasoned ” . The experts’ conclusions were seen by the court as substantiated and not open to dispute , given that the information received from the experts corresponded to the information received from other sources , such as the victims and the witness statements . The court also stressed that it would not call the experts or authorise an additional expert examination as it had no doubts about the conclusions made in the report in question .

ORG main reasons for finding that the applicants had committed hooliganism motivated by religious hatred were as follows :

“ The court can not accept the defence ’s argument that the GPE actions were not motivated by religious hatred and enmity or hatred against a social group .

The court finds that the GPE actions were motivated by religious hatred for the following reasons .

The defendants present themselves as supporters of feminism , a movement for equality between women and men .

At the present time people belonging to the feminist movement fight for equality of the sexes in political , family and sexual relations . Belonging to the feminist movement is not unlawful and is not a criminal offence in GPE . A number of religions , such as ORG , ORG and ORG , have a religious , dogmatic basis incompatible with the ideas of feminism . And while feminism is not a religious theory , its adherents interfere with various areas of social relations such as morality , rules of decency , family relations , sexual relations , including those of a non - traditional nature , which were historically constructed on the basis of religious views .

In the modern world , relations between nations and nationalities and between different religions must be built on the principles of mutual respect and equality . The idea that one is superior and the others inferior , that a different ideology , social group or religion are unacceptable , gives grounds for mutual enmity , hatred and personal conflicts .

The defendants’ hatred and enmity were demonstrated in the court hearings , as was seen from their reactions , emotions and responses in the course of the examination of the victims and witnesses .

It can be seen from the statements of the victims , witnesses , defendants and the material evidence that ORG performances are carried out by way of a sudden appearance by the group [ in public places ] with the band dressed in brightly coloured clothes and wearing balaclavas to cover [ their ] faces . Members of the group make brusque movements with their heads , arms and legs , accompanying them with obscene language and other words of an insulting nature . That behaviour does not respect the canons of ORG , irrespective of whether it takes place in a cathedral or outside its walls . Representatives of other religions and people who do not consider themselves believers also find such behaviour unacceptable . PERSON ‘ performances’ outside religious buildings , although containing signs of clear disrespect for society motivated by religious hatred and enmity and hatred of a specific social group , are not associated with a specific object and therefore amount to a violation of moral standards or an offence . However , placing such a performance within an NORP cathedral changes the object of the crime . It represents in that case a mixture of relations between people , rules of conduct established by legal acts , morality , customs , traditions which guarantee a socially tranquil environment and the protection of individuals in various spheres of their lives , as well as the proper functioning of the ORG and public institutions . Violating the internal regulations of NORP ORG was merely a way of showing disrespect for society , motivated by religious hatred and enmity and hatred towards a social group .

The court concludes that [ the applicants’ ] actions ... offend and insult the feelings of a large group of people in the present case in view of their connection with religion , [ their actions ] incite feelings of hatred and enmity and therefore violate the constitutional basis of the ORG .

[ The applicants’ ] intention to incite religious hatred and enmity and hatred towards a specific social group in view of its connection with religion , in public , is confirmed by the following facts .

A so - called ‘ punk prayer’ was carried out in a public place – Christ the Saviour Cathedral . [ The applicants ] knowingly envisaged a negative response to that performance on the part of society as they had prepared bright , open dresses and balaclavas in advance and on DATE publicly and in an organised group carried out their actions , which were motivated by religious hatred and enmity and hatred towards a social group in view of its connection with religion .

Given the particular circumstances of the criminal offence , its nature , the division of the roles , the actions of the accomplices , the time , place and method of committing the offence of hooliganism , that is to say a gross violation of public order committed by a group of people acting in premeditated fashion and in concert , and which demonstrated an explicit lack of respect for society motivated by religious hatred and enmity and hatred towards a social group , the court is convinced that [ the applicants ] were correctly charged with the [ offence ] and that their guilt in committing [ it ] has been proven during the trial .

[ The applicants’ ] actions are an obvious and gross violation of generally accepted standards and rules of conduct , given the content of their actions and the place where they were carried out . The defendants violated the generally accepted rules and standards of conduct accepted as the basis of public order in NORP ORG . The use of offensive language in public in the vicinity of NORP icons and objects of worship can only be characterised as a violation of public order , given the place where those actions were carried out . In fact , there was mockery and humiliation of the people present in the ORG , a violation of social tranquillity , unauthorised and wilful entry into the cathedral ’s ambon and soleas , accompanied by intentional , stubborn and a lengthy period of disobedience to the reprimands and orders of the guards and churchgoers .

The court dismisses [ the applicants’ ] arguments that they had no intention to incite religious hatred or enmity or to offend the dignity of a group of people because of their religious beliefs , as those arguments were refuted by the evidence in the case . ...

Although the members of ORG cite political motives for their actions , arguing that they have a positive attitude to the NORP religion and that their performance was directed against the uniting of ORG and ORG , their words are refuted by their actions , lyrics and articles found [ in the course of the investigation ] .

The defendants’ arguments that their actions in the cathedral were not motivated by hatred or enmity towards NORP churchgoers and NORP , but were governed by political considerations , are also unsubstantiated because , as can be seen from the GPE statements , no political claims were made and no names of political leaders were mentioned during the GPE acts of disorder in the FAC . ”

Citing the results of psychological expert examinations commissioned by investigators , ORG noted that the CARDINAL applicants suffered from mixed personality disorders , which did not affect their understanding of the criminal nature of the act they had carried out in the cathedral and did not call for psychiatric treatment . The psychiatric diagnosis was made on the basis of the ORG active social position , their reliance on their personal experience when taking decisions , their determination to defend social values , the “ peculiarity ” of their interests , their stubbornness in defending their opinion , their confidence and their disregard for social rules and standards .

As regards the punishment to be imposed on the applicants , ORG ruled as follows :

“ Taking into account the gravity and social danger of the offence , the circumstances in which it was committed , the object and reasons for committing the offence , and [ the applicants’ ] attitude towards their acts , the court believes that the goals of punishment , such as the restoration of social justice , the correction of people who have been convicted and the prevention of the commission of new offences , can only be achieved by sentencing them to prison and their serving the sentence ... ”

The DATE prison sentence was to be calculated from the date of arrest of each of the applicants , that is from CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyers lodged an appeal on behalf of the CARDINAL applicants and on DATE the first applicant submitted an additional statement to her appeal . She stated , in particular , that throughout the trial she and the other accused had not been able to have confidential consultations with their lawyers .

On DATE , ORG decided on the appeals by upholding the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as far as it concerned the first CARDINAL applicants , but amended it in respect of the third applicant . Given the third applicant ’s “ role in the criminal offence [ and ] her attitude towards the events [ of DATE ] ” , ORG suspended her sentence , gave her DATE probation and released her in the courtroom . ORG did not address the issue of confidential consultations between the applicants and their lawyers .

On DATE the first and second applicants were released from serving their sentence under a general amnesty issued by the PERSON on DATE , the ORG on DATE of ORG .

On DATE the third applicant was also amnestied .

On DATE the ORG , on behalf of the second applicant , applied to the Presidium of ORG for supervisory review of the conviction . He argued , in particular , that the applicants’ actions had not amounted to hooliganism as they could not be regarded as inciting hatred or enmity . Breaches of the normal functioning of places of worship , insults to religious feelings or the profanation of religious objects were administrative offences punishable under LAW .

On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG refused to institute supervisory review proceedings .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG refused to review the decision of DATE .

On DATE the ORG submitted an application for supervisory review to ORG . As well as the arguments set out in the previous application , he added that public criticism of officials , including heads of ORG , the government and the heads of religious communities , was a way of exercising the constitutional right to freedom of speech .

On unspecified date the first and second ORG representatives also applied for supervisory review to ORG on their behalf . They argued , inter alia , that the applicants’ actions had amounted to political criticism , not incitement to hatred or enmity on religious grounds or towards any social group . Furthermore , they pointed to a number of alleged breaches of criminal procedure in the course of the trial .

On DATE ORG instituted supervisory review proceedings upon the above applications .

On unspecified date the third applicant also applied for supervisory review of her conviction .

On DATE ORG instituted supervisory review proceedings upon her application .

DATE . On an unspecified date the case was transferred to the ORG of ORG for supervisory review .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG reviewed the case . It upheld the findings that the applicants’ actions had amounted to incitement to religious hatred or enmity and dismissed the arguments concerning breaches of criminal procedure at the trial . At the same time , it removed the reference to “ hatred towards a particular social group ” from the judgment as it had not been established which social group had been concerned . It reduced each applicant ’s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

NORP The group uploaded a video of their performance of Punk Prayer PERSON , PERSON Away at FAC in GPE and at NORP FAC to their website http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com . It was also republished by many websites .

On DATE a State Duma member , PERSON , asked ORG to study the video of the group ’s performance , to stop its dissemination and to ban the websites which had published it .

As a result of that assessment , on DATE the Zamoskvoretskiy Inter - District Prosecutor applied to ORG of GPE for a declaration that the Internet pages http://www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com/CARDINAL.html , http://www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com/CARDINAL.html , http://www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com/CARDINAL.html and http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com/CARDINAL.html were extremist . They contained text posted by ORG , photographs and videos of their performances , including videos for Riot in GPE , PERSON Himself ; PERSON ; Death to Prison , Freedom to ORG ; Release the Cobblestones and Punk Prayer – Virgin Mary , PERSON Away ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and Appendix for lyrics ) . The prosecutor also sought to limit access to the material in question by installing a filter to block the IP addresses of websites where the recordings had been published .

After learning of the prosecutor ’s application through the media , the third applicant lodged an application with FAC on DATE , seeking to join the proceedings as an interested party . She argued that her rights as a member of ORG would be affected by any court decision in the case .

On DATE ORG dismissed her application , finding as follows :

“ Having considered [ the third applicant ’s ] argument that a decision issued in response to the prosecutor ’s request could affect [ her ] rights and obligations , the court finds this argument unsubstantiated because the judgment of CARDINAL DATE issued by ORG in respect of the third applicant became final on DATE ; [ she ] was found guilty by that judgment under LAW of LAW Criminal Code of hooliganism committed in a group acting in premeditated fashion and in concert . That judgment can be appealed against by way of supervisory review in entirely different proceedings .

[ The third applicant ’s ] argument that charges related to a criminal offence under LAW § CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW were severed from [ the first ] criminal case can not , in the court ’s opinion , show that [ her ] rights and obligations would be influenced by the court ’s decision issued in respect of the prosecutor ’s request because there is no evidence that [ she ] took any part in disseminating the materials published on the Internet sites identified by the prosecutor [ . ] [ T]here is no evidence that [ she ] owns those websites either .

Therefore the court concludes that an eventual decision on the prosecutor ’s request for the materials to be declared extremist will not affect [ the third applicant ’s ] rights and obligations ; and therefore there are no grounds for her to join the proceedings as an interested party . ”

On DATE the third applicant appealed against that decision .

DATE . On DATE the ORG ruled that video content on http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com was extremist , namely the video - recordings of their performances of Riot in GPE , PERSON Himself ; PERSON ; Death to Prison , Freedom to ORG ; Release the Cobblestones and Punk Prayer – Virgin Mary , PERSON Away . It also ordered that access to that material be limited by a filter on the website ’s IP address . Relying on sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Suppression of Extremism Act and section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and ORG , the court gave the reasons for its decision and stated as follows :

“ According to section CARDINAL of [ LAW ] , extremist activity is deemed to be constituted by , inter alia , the stirring up of social , racial , ethnic or religious discord ; propaganda about the exceptional nature , superiority or deficiency of persons on the basis of their social , racial , ethnic , religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion ; violations of human and civil rights and freedoms and lawful interests in connection with a person ’s social , racial , ethnic , religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion ; public appeals to carry out the above - mentioned acts or the mass dissemination of knowingly extremist material , and likewise the production or storage thereof with the aim of mass dissemination .

Results from monitoring the Internet and of a psychological linguistic expert examination performed by experts from ORG state that the Internet sites http://www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com/CARDINAL.html , http://www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com/CARDINAL.html , http://www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com/CARDINAL.html and http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com/CARDINAL.html contain video materials of an extremist nature .

That conclusion is confirmed by report no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the results of the psychological linguistic expert examination performed by experts from ORG .

The court concludes that free access to video materials of an extremist nature may contribute to the incitement of hatred and enmity on national and religious grounds , and violates the rights of a specific group of individuals – the consumers of information services in GPE .

The court accepts the prosecutor ’s argument that the dissemination of material of an extremist nature disrupts social stability and creates a threat of damage to the life , health and dignity of individuals , to the personal security of an unidentified group of individuals and disrupts the basis of the constitutional order of the ORG . Accordingly , the aforementioned activities are against the public interests of GPE .

Taking the above - mentioned circumstances into account , the court finds that the prosecutor ’s application is substantiated and should be allowed in full . ”

The third applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the third applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE on the grounds that LAW did not provide for a possibility to appeal against a decision to deny an application to participate in proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the third applicant against the decision of DATE . It found that under LAW procedure no appeal lay against a court decision on an application to join proceedings as an interested party . It noted , furthermore , that the applicant would be able to restate her arguments in her appeal against the decision on the merits of the case .

On DATE ORG left the third applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE without examination . The appellate court stated , inter alia :

“ ... the subject in question was the extremist nature of the information placed in the Internet sources indicated by the prosecutor and the necessity to limit access to them[. ] [ A]t the same time , the question of [ the third applicant ’s ] rights and obligations was not examined , the impugned decision did not limit her rights , and she was not a party to the proceedings begun upon the prosecutor ’s application .

Taking into account the foregoing , [ the third applicant ’s ] allegations contained in her appeal statement concerning alleged breaches of procedural rules on account of the failure to allow her to participate in proceedings which violated her rights and legal interests are unfounded and are based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules of procedural law .

Therefore ... [ the third applicant ] has no right to appeal against the above decision . ”


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

NORP The applicant in application no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr C. R. Dancu , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP The applicant in application no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , was a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived in GPE . He died on DATE . His wife PERSON expressed the wish to continue these proceedings . In its decision of DATE , the ORG granted locus standi to his heir . The ORG will continue to refer to PERSON as “ the applicant ” . The applicant and subsequently his heir were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

The cases concern the events of CARDINAL DATE in GPE , when a popular revolt that started in that city led eventually to the fall of the totalitarian regime in GPE . At the time in question , the applicants were high - ranking military officers who were sent to PERSON to suppress the revolt . Orders were given by the then Head of ORG to kill the protesters . CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL sustained gunshot wounds . More details of these events are given in ORG “ CARDINAL DATE ” and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE .

After the change of regime , the applicants took up appointments in the newly - formed government , since the general perception at that time was that during the DATE events they had played a significant role in bringing the army onto the side of the insurgents . They remained in power in the first few governments formed after the revolution .

On DATE the Government established a truth commission in GPE ‒ consisting of military personnel , civil and military prosecutors , members of civil society and specialists ( including lawyers and a doctor ) ‒ with a view to investigating the events of DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL written statements about the events were gathered . Mr. PERSON stated that PERSON , a prosecutor and member of the truth commission , had assembled in CARDINAL room all the army conscripts who had participated in the events and had ordered them to describe the nature of the applicant ’s participation in the repression . He claimed that later on , in DATE , PERSON had used these extra - judicial declarations in the criminal proceedings against the applicants .

In DATE , the truth commission recommended that criminal investigations be opened in respect of several high - ranking officers , including the applicants , in order to establish the extent of their responsibility for the repression of the revolution in GPE .

On DATE , the military prosecutor ’s office opened investigations in respect of several officers identified by the commission , as well as various other suspects . Some high - ranking officers of the former regime were convicted over the course of time for their role in the repression and some servicemen were found guilty of having killed or injured individual victims .

On an unspecified date , criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants . On DATE ORG decided not to bring criminal proceedings against a number of high - ranking officers of the former regime , including the applicants , for alleged crimes committed during the DATE events in GPE . On DATE that decision was quashed and the prosecution continued .

On DATE the applicants were informed of the accusations against them and were given access to the prosecution file . On DATE they were committed for trial by ORG on charges of aggravated murder in the context of the repression of the popular revolt of DATE .

The bill of indictment was some CARDINAL pages long and the prosecution file consisted of several volumes of CARDINAL pages each , comprising witness testimonies and documents from the time of the revolt DATE shorthand records of meetings , military logs and medical certificates . CARDINAL witnesses were summoned by the prosecutor and CARDINAL civil parties joined the proceedings .

The trial took place before ORG , first before the Military Section and then before LAW , which gave judgment in the case . PERSON complained about alleged irregularities in the proceedings , but his requests were dismissed by the court on DATE .

ORG examined the prosecution file and heard testimonies from several witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence . The applicants also made statements before the court .

On DATE the defence lodged a constitutional complaint alleging an interference with the applicants’ right to CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction ; on DATE it was rejected by ORG , which then proceeded with its examination of the merits .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a threejudge bench , convicted the applicants of aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder and sentenced each of them to fifteen years’ imprisonment , restriction of the exercise of certain civil rights , and demotion . It also ordered the applicants , together with ORG , to pay damages to CARDINAL victims who had suffered injuries while the CARDINAL applicants were in command of the military forces .

On DATE ORG dismissed appeals that had been lodged by the applicants , ORG and some of the civil parties . The judgment thus became final .

ORG paid the compensation to the victims . The CARDINAL applicants were imprisoned .

On DATE the Procurator General lodged an extraordinary appeal , seeking to have the previous decisions set aside ( recurs în anulare ) , on CARDINAL grounds :

( i ) that the courts had failed to order a psychiatric evaluation of PERSON ORG to be conducted , even though that requirement was mandatory for murder trials ;

( ii ) that the first - instance court had dismissed the constitutional complaint raised by the defence instead of allowing ORG to examine its merits ;

( iii ) that PERSON right to be assisted by counsel had been infringed by the appeal court ; and

( iv ) that the acts committed by the applicants had not constituted crimes .

On DATE the extraordinary appeal was allowed by the CARDINAL Chambers of ORG sitting together .

ORG also nullified the execution of the sentences . The applicants were thus released from prison .

A CARDINAL - judge bench of ORG and ORG ( formerly ORG ) took over the case . On DATE it also referred to ORG the constitutional complaint which PERSON had reiterated before it . ORG dismissed it on DATE . ORG granted requests for new evidence made by the applicants , in particular requests to adduce documents and to summon CARDINAL witnesses ; it heard statements from the applicants and some of the witnesses and re - examined the whole body of evidence administered during the criminal prosecution and in the first set of proceedings .

Mr PERSON complained of alleged irregularities in the prosecution proceedings . On DATE his complaints were dismissed in a thoroughly reasoned interlocutory judgment .

With regard to the merits of the case , the applicants denied committing the crimes of which they had been accused .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder and imposed a final sentence of DATE imprisonment each , together with an additional penalty restricting the exercise of certain civil rights , and demotion . It also granted the compensation claims on the same terms as in the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It noted that ORG had already paid those damages .

The applicants appealed and in a final decision of DATE a CARDINAL - judge bench of ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment delivered by the CARDINAL - judge bench .

The applicants were imprisoned once again in execution of their sentence .


Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

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

On DATE the applicant ’s son PERSON , a construction worker , fell from a scaffold while working on a private construction site and died shortly afterwards as a result of the injuries he had sustained .

Right after the incident , an investigation into the death of the applicant ’s son was initiated . Accordingly , a report on the scene of the incident was prepared , witnesses were interviewed and the applicant ’s son ’s employers were questioned as possible suspects . The GPE public prosecutor ’s office also commissioned an expert report to establish the causes of the applicant ’s son ’s death , in particular to determine whether his employers bore any responsibility for DATE .

NORP The expert report submitted to the GPE public prosecutor ’s office on DATE found that the applicant ’s son had been primarily responsible for his fall , on account of his failure to take the necessary precautions to ensure his safety on the scaffold , which he would have been expected to do as an experienced construction worker . It added , however , that the construction site managers and the civil engineer in charge were also responsible for the accident , as they had not set up a system of checks to ensure work safety on the construction site , and had not provided the deceased with sufficient training on safety measures , contrary to the requirements of the relevant legislation .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor ’s office filed with ORG a bill of indictment against CARDINAL people in charge of the construction site in question , for causing the applicant ’s son ’s death by negligence . The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party .

On an unspecified date ORG Instance appointed a panel of CARDINAL experts , with a view to determining liability for the death of the applicant’ s son . The expert report submitted to the criminal court on DATE found that the scaffold from which the applicant ’s son had fallen had not been sufficiently secured , and this was the responsibility of the construction site manager , L.K. Accordingly , the expert report established that PERSON bore the main responsibility for PERSON Öz ’s death .

Relying on that second expert report , on DATE ORG convicted PERSON of causing the applicant ’s son ’s death by negligence . However , it decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment , in accordance with LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .

Following the death of her son , ORG started paying the applicant a DATE “ survivor ’s pension ” in the amount of MONEY ( TRY – MONEY ( ORG ) ) as of DATE , in accordance with LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .

In the meantime , an investigation had been initiated into the death of PERSON Öz by ORG , which concluded on DATE that the accident which had claimed his life had been a “ work - related accident ” .

Following that decision , ORG allocated the applicant a DATE “ work - related accident pension ” as of CARDINAL DATE in the amount of TRY MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , in addition to the survivor ’s pension she was already receiving . However , relying on sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW , which concerned the calculation of payments to persons entitled to several different types of pension , it recalculated the amount of the applicant ’s survivor ’s pension and reduced it to TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) . Moreover , ORG asked the applicant to pay back the excess from the survivor ’s pension she had been receiving up to that date .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG against ORG , arguing that the latter had erroneously interpreted the relevant sections of LAW on the calculation of benefits , and had thus miscalculated her survivor ’s pension .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim and ordered ORG to pay her the benefits she was due retrospectively , together with interest .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

Below is a table of the DATE payments received by the applicant from ORG following the death of her son , based on the documents she submitted to the ORG :

In addition to the amounts noted above , the applicant received a lump sum payment of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL in DATE ) on an unspecified date in DATE , in accordance with the judgment of ORG , to cover the past benefits of which she had been deprived owing to the erroneous calculations of ORG .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Gaziantep .

In DATE the applicant and his family left GPE to escape the oppression they faced on account of their religious beliefs . After spending some time in GPE , in DATE they entered GPE by legal means .

Subsequent to their arrival in GPE , the applicant and his wife made a request for asylum . The applicant ’s wife was granted a residence permit in the city of Gaziantep pending her asylum request , but the applicant was not able to obtain one as he could not pay the requisite fee for the permit . The applicant , therefore , resided illegally in Gaziantep .

On DATE the applicant and his family travelled from GPE to GPE to seek medical treatment for his wife . The applicant was subjected to a fine of MONEY ( TRY ) by the NORP border police on account of his illegal residence in GPE . He was also banned from entering the country for DATE .

On DATE the applicant and his family attempted to re - enter GPE through FAC in GPE . The applicant , however , was not permitted entry , and he was placed in the detention facility at the airport for “ inadmissible passengers ” pending his repatriation to GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an objection to his repatriation and lodged a new asylum request .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) requested the offices of the GPE and Gaziantep governors to notify the applicant that he would be accommodated at the airport detention facility pending a decision on his asylum request . According to a note dated CARDINAL DATE addressed by the GPE governor ’s office to ORG , the applicant was notified as requested . The note did not , however , indicate when the relevant notification had been made .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s asylum request . The applicant was notified of this decision on DATE . He was also informed on that date that he could lodge an objection to the ORG ’s decision within TIME , that he would be deported in the event of the dismissal of his objection and that he would continue to be accommodated in the airport detention facility in the meantime .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection to the ORG ’s decision .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from NORP FAC to the ORG Foreigners’ Removal Centre in GPE ( “ the NORP Removal Centre ” ) .

The applicant was kept in the Kumkapı Removal Centre until DATE . On DATE , he was granted a temporary residence permit pending his asylum request .

There is no information in the case file regarding the outcome of the applicant ’s asylum request .

The applicant claimed that the detention facility at FAC where he had been kept for DATE between CARDINAL May and DATE had been a room of QUANTITY and that , while the numbers had fluctuated , the room had accommodated up to CARDINAL people at times . There had been no furniture in the room suitable for sleeping on , but only QUANTITY chaises longues , which had been impossible to rest on . The applicant further claimed that throughout his detention , he had not been allowed to leave that room , nor had he had any contact with the outside world , including with a lawyer . He had also been denied any access to natural light and fresh air , as the room in question had had no windows . According to the applicant , the detention facility had been designed for holding inadmissible passengers for short periods and had been unsuitable for long - term detention . All other passengers in his situation had either been released or repatriated after DATE of detention at most .

The applicant claimed that the Kumkapı Removal Centre had been severely overcrowded at the time of his detention . He had had to share a dormitory room of QUANTITY with CARDINAL other people , who had been provided with CARDINAL bunk beds to sleep on . He had had to spend all his time in that humid and smoke - filled room without being able to engage in any social activities and had not been allowed access to outdoor exercise throughout his detention . The applicant further alleged that the overcrowding of the removal centre had led to hygiene problems . The building had been infested with insects and there had been frequent outbreaks of contagious diseases . The quality and quantity of the food provided had also been fairly poor .

The Government claimed that the room in which the applicant had been held at FAC had measured QUANTITY . The room had been equipped with CARDINAL beds for men , as well as a ventilation system , a television , a toilet and a shower . The room had had a padded sitting area for rest and sleep , and had been cleaned DATE . The Government submitted that during the applicant ’s stay DATE and DATE , the number of detainees had never exceeded CARDINAL . They did not , however , submit any documents in support of that submission , such as a list of the detainees kept in the detention facility during the relevant period . Nor did they submit any photographs of the detention facility , despite the ORG ’s request to that effect .

The Government stated that the Kumkapı Removal Centre ’s capacity had been reduced from CARDINAL to CARDINAL , in line with recommendations made by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) , following its visit in DATE . Accordingly , the number of detainees during the period of the applicant ’s detention had never exceeded CARDINAL . They did not , however , submit the registers recording the occupation rates during the period in question .

The Government stated that the detainees had been accommodated on CARDINAL floors at the removal centre : the first CARDINAL floors had been reserved for male detainees , and the third floor for females . The information provided as to the number and size of the rooms was , however , inconsistent . While the Government claimed in their observations that there had been CARDINAL dormitory rooms on each floor , measuring CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and QUANTITY respectively , the information note prepared by ORG and appended to their observations indicated that there had been CARDINAL rooms on the first floor , measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY , and CARDINAL rooms on both the second and third floors , measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY . The Government stated that they were not able to provide information as to the exact number of people that the applicant had shared a room with , because detainees had been left to make their own choice of rooms . They submitted , however , that there had been CARDINAL beds in each room .

The Government further submitted that there had been a cafeteria measuring QUANTITY on each floor , where breakfast , lunch and dinner had been served DATE . The detainees had had the right to outdoor exercise in suitable weather conditions , as well as the right to engage in sports and watch television . The detainees had had access to medical care in cases of emergency and a doctor had visited the removal centre once DATE . As for hygiene standards in the facility , there had been CARDINAL cleaning staff working full time at the removal centre , and the building had been disinfected at certain times .

In support of their claims , the ORG submitted , inter alia , photographs of CARDINAL of the dormitory rooms , both of which appeared well - lit and fairly clean , as well as of the hallway and the cafeteria on CARDINAL of the floors reserved for male detainees . Although the total number of beds can not be ascertained from the photos , it can be determined that there were CARDINAL beds ( that is to say CARDINAL bunk beds ) in both rooms . It is further observed that there were CARDINAL rows of bunk beds positioned against the walls in both rooms , leaving a narrow corridor in the middle of the room . While some of the bunks were touching each other , others were separated by big metal lockers . No other furniture , such as tables and chairs , was present in the rooms ; there were blankets on the beds in CARDINAL of the rooms and the other room had no bedding at all . A television was available on each floor in the cafeteria . Moreover , a metal situp bench and an exercise bike were shown in the photograph of the hallway . No photos of the toilets or the showers were provided .

The Government also submitted an outdoor photo of some detainees in the removal centre ’s courtyard . There were no men amongst these detainees – only women and children .


Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

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

NORP The applicant ’s business was declared bankrupt in DATE and he was subject to a tax inspection for DATE . The tax inspection report was completed on DATE . At the same time , the applicant ’s wife was also subject to a tax inspection . She has lodged a separate application with ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Hanna Riikka Alasippola v. GPE ) .

On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional valueadded tax on the applicant as well as tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skatteförhöjning ) for DATE and DATE .

On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional income tax and tax surcharges on the applicant for DATE and DATE . The amount of tax surcharges varied CARDINAL .

NORP By letters dated DATE and DATE the applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden ) , requesting it to quash the decisions of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s applications concerning the income tax imposed for DATE and DATE .

The applicant appealed against both the decisions of DATE and the rectification decisions of CARDINAL DATE to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltnings - domstolen ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeals concerning the income tax imposed for DATE and DATE .

The applicant appealed against the decision of DATE by ORG to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) but later withdrew his application . On DATE the case was considered by ORG as lapsed .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeals concerning the value - added tax imposed in respect of DATE . It appears that no appeal was made against this decision .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant , inter alia , for aggravated dishonesty by a debtor ( törkeä velallisen epärehellisyys , grovt oredlighet som gäldenär ) , false accounting ( kirjanpitorikos , bokföringsbrott ) and aggravated tax fraud ( törkeä veropetos , grovt skattebedrägeri ) concerning DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aggravated dishonesty by a debtor as , DATE , he had transferred income to his wife to the detriment of his creditors . He was accused of false accounting DATE as he had failed to make entries into the accounts . He was accused of aggravated tax fraud DATE as he had failed to declare income and consequently , inter alia , the income tax and value - added tax imposed on him had been too low . The tax authorities joined the charges and presented a compensation claim totalling approximately the amount of avoided taxes .

On DATE the GPE - GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the applicant of aggravated dishonesty by a debtor , false accounting and of aggravated tax fraud , and imposed a prison sentence of DATE and DATE . He was ordered to pay the tax authorities CARDINAL ( ORG ) plus interest in compensation .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting that the ORG judgment be quashed and the charges dismissed . He referred to the ne bis in idem principle and to the ORG ’s case - law in that respect .

On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld the ORG judgment . The court found that the mere fact that the same issues had been assessed in the administrative proceedings did not necessarily prevent the examination of the charges pressed . After having compared the charges of aggravated tax fraud to the facts on the basis of which the tax surcharges had been imposed , by the type of tax imposed and DATE concerned , the court found that the facts on which these charges were based were substantially different from those on which the tax surcharges had been based . There was thus no impediment to examining the charges against the applicant .

By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . He emphasised that matters which had already been examined by the tax authorities could not be examined again in criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal except in respect of the charges concerning aggravated tax fraud .

On DATE ORG dismissed the charge of aggravated tax fraud without examining the merits as far as the charge concerned income tax from DATE and value - added tax from DATE , and withheld the relevant taxes . The applicant was convicted for the remaining part of the charge of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced , together with the earlier convictions , to imprisonment for DATE and DATE . The court found that , when considering the ne bis in idem prohibition , the similarity of the facts should be examined by the type of tax imposed and separately for DATE . As concerned DATE , there was no impediment to examining the charge as the tax inspection did not concern DATE . However , concerning DATE , the charge could not be examined , except in respect of value - added tax , as the same matter had already been subject to an assessment by the tax authorities . In respect of DATE the charge could not be examined at all . The same applied for DATE and DATE . The taxation decisions had all become final before the charge of aggravated tax fraud , which concerned the same matter , was pressed . Therefore , the charge could only be examined in respect of DATE and in respect of the valueadded tax imposed during DATE . This judgment has been published under number PERSON .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( laki verotusmenettelystä , lagen om beskattningsförfarande , Act no . DATE , as amended by Act no . DATE ) provides that if a person has failed to make the required tax returns or has given incomplete , misleading or false information to the tax authorities and tax has therefore been incompletely or partially levied , the taxpayer shall be ordered to pay unpaid taxes together with additional tax and a tax surcharge .

According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , as amended by Acts no . DATE and no . DATE ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a tax authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .

According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( as amended by Acts no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a debtor who ( CARDINAL ) destroys his or her property , ( CARDINAL ) gives away or otherwise surrenders his or her property without acceptable reason , ( CARDINAL ) transfers his or her property abroad in order to place it beyond the reach of his or her creditors or ( CARDINAL ) increases his or her liabilities without basis and thus causes his or her insolvency or essentially worsens his or her state of insolvency , shall be sentenced for dishonesty by a debtor to a fine or to imprisonment for DATE . If by the dishonesty by a debtor ( CARDINAL ) considerable benefit is sought , ( CARDINAL ) considerable or particularly substantial damage is caused to the creditors , or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the dishonesty by a debtor is aggravated also when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated dishonesty by a debtor to imprisonment for DATE and at DATE .

ORG has taken a stand on the ne bis in idem principle in its precedent case ORG which concerned tax surcharges and aggravated tax fraud . In that case it found , inter alia , that even though a final judgment in a taxation case , in which tax surcharges had been imposed , prevented criminal charges being brought about the same matter , such preventive effect could not be applied to pending cases ( lis pendens ) crossing from administrative proceedings to criminal proceedings or vice versa . However , in DATE ORG reversed its line of interpretation , finding that charges for tax fraud could no longer be brought if there was already a decision to order or not to order tax surcharges in the same matter ( PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .

The Act on Tax Surcharges and Customs Duty Surcharges Imposed by a Separate Decision ( laki erillisellä päätöksellä määrättävästä veron- tai tullinkorotuksesta , lagen om skatteförhöjning och tullhöjning som påförs genom ett särskilt beslut , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . According to the LAW , the tax authorities can , when making a tax decision , assess whether to impose a tax surcharge or to report the matter to the police . The tax authorities can decide not to impose a tax surcharge . If they have not reported the matter to the police , a tax surcharge can be imposed by a separate decision by the end of the calendar year following the actual tax decision . If the tax authorities have imposed tax surcharges , they can no longer report the same matter to the police unless , after imposing the tax surcharges , they have received evidence of new or recently revealed facts . If the tax authorities have reported the matter to the police tax surcharges can , as a rule , no longer be imposed . The purpose of the LAW is thus to ensure that a tax or a customs duty matter is processed and possibly punished in CARDINAL set of proceedings . The LAW does not , however , contain any transitional provisions extending its scope retroactively .


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 .

In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer , the local police , seeking his reinstatement and damages . His claim was eventually rejected .

The first - instance judgment was rendered by ORG on DATE .

The second - instance judgment was rendered by ORG on DATE .

The third - instance judgment was rendered by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with ORG complaining under LAW No . CARDINAL about the outcome and length of his labour dispute .

On DATE ORG found a breach of the applicant ’s right to a trial within a reasonable time and rejected the remainder of the case . It did not award any damages .


Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( “ the LAW ) by a NORP national , Mr PERSON ( “ the applicant ” ) , on DATE .

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 .

At the material time the applicant worked at a steel factory owned by a company in which the ORG held PERCENT of the share capital . The company operated under its articles of association and was managed by a director appointed by the general meeting of shareholders , which was the highest authority deemed competent since shareholders represented over PERCENT of the votes . The company ’s supervisory board included CARDINAL representative of ORG .

On DATE the director of the company , noting an increase in instances of staff members presenting for work under the influence of alcohol , and relying on paragraph CARDINAL of the company ’s internal regulations , which “ forbade attendance at work in a state of intoxication and ... drinking at work ” , instructed the departmental factory guards ( “ the guards ” ) – who were employees of the company – to “ apprehend , in compliance with the legislation of GPE , anyone appearing to be in a state of alcoholic ( narcotic ) intoxication and take them to [ the GPE ] office for a report subsequently to be drawn up ” . Employees who disagreed with the report were to be escorted to a local clinic for an alcohol test .

At TIME on DATE , a guard at the factory gate suspected that the applicant , who was on his way out after working CARDINAL shifts in succession , was drunk and asked him whether he had drunk alcohol . Following the applicant ’s reply that he had drunk “ a glass of vodka ” , guards PERSON and P. seized the applicant ’s badge and would not allow him to leave the LOC of the factory . After TIME the senior guard , ORG arrived , questioned the applicant and drew up a report indicating that the applicant was drunk and “ looked untidy ” , and that “ there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath ” . The applicant , who disagreed with those conclusions and refused to sign the report , was then taken to the office of the chief guard , PERSON , for further questioning . PERSON asked several factory workers to smell the applicant ’s breathe and say whether he was drunk . Eventually , the applicant was escorted to a local clinic where at TIME he was given an alcohol test and was found to be sober . Subsequently , at an unspecified time , the applicant was allowed to leave , his badge having been returned to him .

On an unspecified date , upon the applicant ’s complaint , the head of the company ’s trade union initiated an internal investigation into the incident . The investigation established that the report drawn up by guard PERSON on DATE had been based on the statements of S. and P. , “ external signs of the applicant ’s alcoholic intoxication ” , and the applicant ’s behavior after he had been stopped by PERSON It was also noted that the applicant had consented to undergo an alcohol test at the clinic .

On DATE , the chief guard of the factory , referring to the findings of that investigation , issued an instruction indicating a number of shortcomings in the conduct of the guards involved in the incident on DATE . In particular , it was noted that guard PERSON had failed to describe the signs of alcoholic intoxication which the applicant had allegedly displayed or to record the statements given by PERSON The chief guard also noted that the guards had failed to draw up a separate report on the applicant ’s refusal to cooperate .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG against the company , seeking CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him by the unlawful actions of the guards on DATE .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s claim . It found that the guards had acted in line with the company ’s internal regulations and therefore their actions had been lawful . Having heard all the eyewitnesses of the incident on DATE , the court concluded that there was no evidence that the guards’ conduct caused damage to the applicant ’s reputation , health , lifestyle or working relationships . The court relied on the report of CARDINAL DATE and the internal investigation report , plus the records of the applicant ’s alcohol test on that date and statements by PERSON The court invoked Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant .

The applicant appealed in cassation , stating , in particular , that ORG had failed to verify whether his detention had been compatible with the requirements of the Convention . According to the applicant , his detention on DATE had not been justified by any of the grounds in LAW but no compensation had been available to him , contrary to LAW . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal in cassation on the ground that there was no evidence suggesting that the decisions of the lower courts were unlawful or inaccurate .

Meanwhile , on DATE at TIME , guards P. and NORP , suspecting the applicant of being drunk , had stopped him as he was leaving the factory . The guards took the applicant to their office and questioned him . The senior guard PERSON drew up a report stating that the applicant was drunk and noting that the latter disagreed with that conclusion . According to the applicant , the guards refused to take him to a clinic for an alcohol test and did not allow him to leave until TIME on DATE . From CARDINAL on DATE to TIME on DATE the guards allegedly pressured and threatened the applicant . According to the Government , the applicant was kept in the GPE office for TIME on DATE .

On DATE at TIME the applicant , who wished to prove that he was sober , went to a local clinic and at TIME on DATE took an alcohol test . There were CARDINAL reports drawn up following the test , which came to opposite conclusions ; the disparity between the conclusions was explained by the different techniques that had been used .

The company carried out an internal investigation into the incident of DATE and found no fault in the GPE conduct . The investigation report mentioned , inter alia , that the guards had not taken the applicant to a clinic for an alcohol test because of poor weather conditions .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG against the company , seeking ORG CARDINAL in compensation for the non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him by his unlawful detention on DATE .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s claim , relying on essentially the same grounds as in its judgment of DATE ( see above ) . The court also noted that according to the statements of guards P. and ORG , the applicant had been released within TIME of his apprehension .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , rejected appeals by the applicant and upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment .

According to the applicant , the judges of the courts dealing with his complaints were biased and corrupt .

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , in force up to CARDINAL DATE , provided that non - pecuniary damage caused to a person or an organization was to be compensated by the person who had caused it unless the latter proved not to be responsible for the damage . Article CARDINAL provided that an employer was liable for harm caused by an employee , in the performance of his or her work duties , to a third person .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provided that unlawful deprivation of liberty or abduction of an individual were punishable by restriction of liberty or imprisonment for DATE .


CASE OF ZORNIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Right to free elections-{general});Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

She actively participates in the political life of the country . Among other things , in DATE she stood as a candidate of ORG of GPE for election to the parliament of CARDINAL of the Entities .

As the applicant does not declare affiliation with any of the “ constituent people ” ( namely , ORG , NORP and NORP ) , but simply as a citizen of GPE , she is ineligible to stand for election to the second chamber of the ORG parliament ( ORG ) and to the collective Head of ORG ( the Presidency ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);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 first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ordered a socially - owned company DP PK Delišes ( hereinafter “ the debtor company ” ) , based in PERSON , to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of debt , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE , upon the first applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor company to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .

On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company ( St. CARDINAL ) .

As a result , the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor company were stayed by ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The first applicant duly submitted his respective claim .

The insolvency proceedings against the debtor company are still ongoing .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG found a violation of the first applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It further awarded him MONEY ( ORG ) as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage . ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s complaint concerning his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as well as his request for pecuniary damages , since the insolvency proceedings were still pending . That decision was delivered to the first applicant on DATE .

The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

He was employed by ORG EI-CARDINAL ORG , a socially - owned company based in LOC ( hereinafter “ the debtor company ” ) .

On DATE the second applicant concluded the settlement with the debtor company before ORG , by which the debtor company was obliged to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This settlement became final on an unspecified date .

On DATE , upon the second applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said settlement and further ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .

On DATE ORG ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final by DATE .

On DATE , upon the second applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions . These decisions became final on unspecified dates .

On DATE and DATE respectively , upon the second applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said decisions and further ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company ( St. CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . As a result , the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor company were stayed .

The second applicant duly submitted his respective claims .

On DATE the second applicant ’s claims were formally recognised .

On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal as lodged out of time . It found that the second applicant failed to lodge his appeal within DATE as of the date when the decisions on the staying of the enforcement proceedings as a result of opening of the insolvency proceedings had been delivered to him . That decision was delivered to the second applicant after DATE .

The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

He was employed by ORG , a socially - owned company based in PERSON ( hereinafter “ the debtor company ” ) .

On DATE the third applicant concluded the settlement with the debtor company before ORG , by which the debtor company was obliged to pay the third applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This settlement became final on an unspecified date .

On DATE , upon the third applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said settlement and further ordered the debtor company to pay the third applicant the enforcement costs .

On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company ( St. CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The third applicant duly submitted his respective claim .

On DATE the third applicant ’s claim was formally recognised .

On DATE the third applicant was paid PERCENT of his recognized claim .

On DATE the third applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal as lodged out of time . It found that the third applicant failed to lodge his appeal within DATE as of the date when the decision on opening of the insolvency proceedings had been rendered or as of the date when he had submitted his claim in the insolvency proceedings . That decision was delivered to the third applicant on DATE .