Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in DATE . He currently lives in GPE , but at the material time lived in GPE , GPE .

The applicant is a GPE and a NORP . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant and his family moved into an apartment in a building constructed for socially disadvantaged families . According to the applicant , because of constant attacks in which his car and the apartment were damaged , the perpetrators of which were never found , he installed a camera outside his apartment .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s next - door neighbour , Y , was watching a kickboxing match between a ORG and a NORP contestant on television . The applicant overheard the next - door conversation as the doors of both his and ORG ( adjacent ) terraces were open . When the NORP kickboxer appeared with his coaches , all of whom were NORP , Y allegedly said that he would slaughter one of them , and GPE , another neighbour , made a disparaging reference to the NORP kickboxer ’s NORP descent . According to the applicant , X left LOC apartment at a certain point and went to his car , from which he took a gun . Y said “ turn it to the left ” , which was the direction of the applicant ’s terrace . This was followed by CARDINAL gunshots , and ORG calling out insulting references to the applicant ’s “ NORP mother ” . X , Y and Y ’s family picked up the spent cartridges from the ground afterwards .

On DATE CARDINAL neighbours , V ( Y ’s wife ) , S and B , were talking on the next - door terrace . As he was on his terrace , the applicant overheard the conversation . V said that she was fighting “ cockroaches , frogs , nits and lice , and all sorts of other things ” , which had been brought by “ those dirty gipsies ” ( “ od ovija gabeljčina ” ) . V continued by saying that B and S “ [ could ] use a hammer and a pruning knife ( kosijer ) , and [ she ] would use an axe ” . S replied that “ her [ people ] carried swords ” . V said that the axe could serve just as well . S answered “ no , no , he is a NORP , I have a sword ” . B said “ all is fine , whatever is more readily available ” ( “ valja što god prije stigne ” ) . V said loudly “ An axe , an axe , a sledgehammer , like the one used on pigs ” .

On DATE Y was having an argument with M , another neighbour , when X joined and said , among other things , that if he “ saw red ” , he would “ kill both you and your brother here like a dog ” ( “ e ću te ubit ka psa i tebe i brata ođe ” ) , apparently pointing at the applicant ’s apartment , adding “ dirty gypsy ” ( “ cigane glibavi ” ) and “ trash ” ( “ ovo smeće ” ) . This was witnessed by M ’s brother , NORP It is unclear from the casefile if the applicant was present during the argument or if he learned about it in some other manner .

On DATE , DATE , a religious holiday celebrated by the applicant and his family , a large cross was drawn on the applicant ’s apartment door , and a large message was written on the wall next to it saying “ move out or you ’ll bitterly regret it ” ( “ seli se , usko će ti bit ” ) . The applicant called the police , who came and took photographs of the cross and the message . The same day the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the police against the families of X , GPE and B , and CARDINAL more family living in the building .

DATE the police interviewed X , Y , V , B , M , D , and CARDINAL other neighbours .

X , Y , V , and B denied the applicant ’s allegations . X and Y also denied that they had watched the match together , and ORG submitted that everything he had said had been addressed to the NORP kickboxer . Both X and Y confirmed that they had heard the shots but said they did not know who had fired them . Y and his children had indeed picked up the spent cartridges from the ground , not in order to hide anything , but because the children found the spent cartridges interesting to play with . Neither X nor Y knew who was responsible for the incident of DATE , but they suspected the applicant himself .

V submitted that the discussion of CARDINAL DATE had referred to another person sought by the police at the time in relation to various attacks , and they had been discussing how they would defend themselves in the event of an attack . B denied that she had been in V ’s apartment on that occasion .

M confirmed that during the argument with Y , X had come and said that if he “ saw red ” he would “ kill them , as well as this gypsy ” ( “ napraviću dženaze i vama , a i ovom ciganinu ” ) , pointing in the direction of the applicant ’s flat . M had assumed that he had meant the applicant . D confirmed M ’s statement .

The other QUANTITY neighbours were not aware of any conflicts amongst the neighbours , or that anybody ill - treated or insulted the applicant on the basis of his national origin . They had no idea who could be responsible for the incident of CARDINAL DATE . The third neighbour , ORG , confirmed the applicant ’s submissions in relation to another incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) below ) .

On DATE the case file was transmitted to the ORG prosecutor ’s office ( ORG državno tužilaštvo ) in order to assess whether there were any elements of the criminal offence of jeopardising someone ’s security ( ugrožavanje sigurnosti ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the higher ORG prosecutor ’s office ( GPE državno tužilaštvo ) in GPE in relation to the above events . He filed the complaint against GPE , Y , V , S and B for incitement to ethnic , racial and religious hatred , discontent and intolerance ( izazivanje nacionalne , rasne i vjerske mržnje , razdora i netrpeljivosti , hereinafter “ hate crime ” ) in connection with discrimination , racial and otherwise ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . He also enclosed relevant video material .

On DATE the higher ORG prosecutor ’s office rejected the complaint on the grounds that there were no elements of any hate crime or other criminal offence within its competence . The applicant was notified that he could take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor and that the case file had already been forwarded to the ORG prosecution service on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG prosecution service issued an official report ( službena zabilješka ) finding that the impugned words of CARDINAL DATE , as well as those of CARDINAL DATE , which referred to the use of swords and axes , had not been addressed to either the applicant or anybody close to him , and that the incident of DATE could not be considered a threat . It was concluded that none of those CARDINAL events had involved an element of jeopardising someone ’s security , or any other criminal offence subject to public prosecution . The incident of CARDINAL DATE , however , could be considered as jeopardising security . On DATE the ORG prosecution service asked the police to undertake measures in order to find the perpetrator . At the same time the police were informed that the applicant ’s criminal complaint in this regard would be kept until the perpetrator was found , or until DATE , when the prosecution of that criminal offence would become time - barred . On DATE the ORG prosecutor informed the applicant of this , as well as of the fact that he could file a criminal complaint against a specific person with appropriate evidence ( uz valjane dokaze ) .

On DATE the applicant filed an application for an investigation ( zahtjev za sprovođenje istrage ) with ORG ( ORG ) in GPE . He enclosed the relevant videos , and proposed that the court hear a number of neighbours , including those he suspected .

On DATE ORG dismissed that application for lack of evidence . In particular , the submitted video material was considered to be inadmissible , having been obtained without a prior court order , and the court observed that the suspected neighbours had denied that what they had said related to the applicant . It was further held that the applicant had not submitted any evidence in relation to the incident of CARDINAL DATE , nor had he called the police at the time to come to the scene and “ collect the necessary material for further analysis ” in order to verify his suspicions .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . He submitted , in particular , that on CARDINAL DATE he had actually called the police , who had only taken photographs of the scene . The fact that they had failed to do what they should have done was in no way his fault , as it was not up to him to tell the police what to do , but only to lodge a criminal complaint , which he had done .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal for lack of evidence , in substance endorsing the reasoning of ORG . In doing so , the court held that the applicant ’s objections as to the gathering of evidence by the police “ could not be the subject of [ that ] court ’s assessment ” .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal . He maintained , inter alia , that because of the failure of the domestic authorities to protect him and his family , they had had to move out of the apartment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He relied on the right to private life , the right to an effective domestic remedy , and the prohibition of discrimination .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional appeal . It considered that it should be examined under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and corresponding Articles of LAW , and found there had been no violation of any of them .

On DATE , as regards the incident of CARDINAL DATE , the police informed the ORG prosecutor ’s office that “ [ they ] had acted on [ the applicant ’s ] criminal complaint and undertaken measures in accordance with their authority , having dedicated a significant amount of time [ to the complaint ] . While carrying out those official actions [ they ] had not found material evidence which would undoubtedly indicate the perpetrator of this criminal offence ” .

The Government submitted information from the applicant ’s criminal record reflecting convictions for minor offences in DATE , DATE and DATE . For each of these offences he had received a suspended sentence .

On DATE the applicant was celebrating GPE . X and Y claimed before the domestic bodies that the applicant had celebrated inappropriately by playing loud music from very early in the morning , shooting in the air and calling NORP and PERSON ( vehabije ) to jihad . He had apparently also tried to hit PERSON with a flagpole ( koplje od zastave ) . The applicant submitted that NORP and GPE ( the husband of X ’s niece ) had been insulting him and his family , while X had also spat on him , shouted obscenities and thrown stones at him , causing him minor physical injuries . On DATE the applicant was found guilty in misdemeanour proceedings of disturbing public order and peace ( narušavanje javnog reda i mira ) by shooting several shots in the air from his starting pistol on DATE . He was sentenced to a DATE period of imprisonment and the pistol was confiscated . The decision was upheld by a secondinstance body on DATE . In relation to the same incident , on DATE X and W were charged with violent behaviour against the applicant . In the course of the proceedings , a medical expert witness submitted that the applicant had a contusion ( nagnječenje ) on the left part of the back of his head , which would have been classified as a minor physical injury at the time it had been inflicted . The medical expert submitted that the injury had been caused by a blunt object , possibly a “ larger stone ” , and that it could not have been caused by sand or “ stones the size of beans ” . On CARDINAL DATE , after the case had been remitted , ORG acquitted X and W , considering that it had not been proved that they had committed the offence .

The applicant reported the following events to the police , but to no avail : ( a ) on DATE an unknown person had thrown a brick and broken one of the windows of his apartment ; ( b ) on DATE and her husband , Z , had tried to hit the applicant ’s parked car with their own car ; this was confirmed by another neighbour , ORG , who witnessed this event and was interviewed by the police in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; ( c ) on DATE had asked Y aloud if he was going to “ slaughter ” somebody , and he had answered that he was , both of them looking at the applicant ; S had said that he would “ make [ his ] car dirty with that man ” ; ( d ) on DATE an unknown person had fired several shots in front of the applicant ’s apartment , below the children ’s bedroom ; the applicant gave the police CARDINAL bullet shells that he had found on the ground ; ( e ) on DATE , shortly after TIME , X had thrown firecrackers at the applicant ’s car and broken its windscreen ; he had also thrown a glass bottle at the applicant and a metal bar at his son , swearing profusely and threatening to slaughter them all ; this had been followed by gunshots .

On DATE , DATE and DATE X , V and PERSON respectively lodged criminal complaints against the applicant for insulting and provoking them , and for playing loud music and calling NORP and PERSON to jihad . On DATE those complaints were rejected by the ORG prosecutor .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE found the applicant guilty of recording Y without authorisation and eavesdropping ( prisluškivanje ) on him , and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional appeal by the applicant in this regard .

On DATE the applicant was fined CARDINAL ( ORG ) in minor offence proceedings ( prekršajni postupak ) for threatening ( izazivanje osjećaja ugroženosti ) V , a decision which was upheld on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against X with the ORG prosecution service , alleging that in DATE and DATE he had threatened to “ cut [ the applicant ’s ] gypsy head off and impale it on a pike ” ( nabiti na kolac ) . On DATE the deputy ORG prosecutor rejected the criminal complaint . On DATE the applicant filed a private criminal action ( optužni predlog ) against X , who was acquitted by ORG on DATE . The court found that X had indeed said the impugned words in front of a witness , and that the words could have made the applicant feel frightened and insecure , but the court could not accept “ that [ the applicant ] had taken those words seriously , especially since the witness , who was the only one who had heard the words , had not taken them seriously , which was why he had informed the applicant about them DATE ” . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE X threatened the applicant ’s daughter by saying that he would kill and slaughter them all , with his hands stretched towards her neck . The girl apparently fainted and was admitted to hospital unconscious . The same day the applicant and his family moved out of their apartment . They were allegedly on a hunger strike for DATE , seeking help from various ORG institutions .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;General principles of international law)

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant served as a civil servant from DATE until DATE . Upon the termination of his service , a certain part of his severance payment was taxed at a PERCENT rate in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

On DATE the applicant , a left - wing politician , participated in a peaceful demonstration wearing a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket . A police patrol which was present called on the applicant to remove the star , which was then confiscated . The applicant ’s complaint to the Head of ORG was to no avail .

Subsequently , he challenged the measure in court .

On DATE ORG dismissed his action . The court held that the display of the red star contravened section CARDINAL/B of LAW and consequently its confiscation was justified under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW .

In review proceedings , ORG upheld ORG decision on DATE , holding that the police measure had been lawful , despite the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . DATE ) , whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the LOC .

The applicant incurred altogether QUANTITY in legal costs .


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

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

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . In some of the applications , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

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

In DATE the applicant was employed by the GPE company of GPE . He worked as a driver in the company ’s Nova Gradiška branch . After organisational changes within the company he was given notice of dismissal on DATE . Pursuant to the notice his employment was terminated on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG in PERSON ( PERSON , Područna služba PERSON , hereinafter “ the PERSON Brod Bureau ” ) , for unemployment benefit .

On DATE he was granted unemployment benefit of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) per month for the period between DATE and DATE , provided that no grounds for terminating payment or the applicant ’s entitlement to payment arose before the end of the period . The applicant then received unemployment benefit on a regular basis until DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost salary .

On DATE the applicant ’s employer brought a counterclaim and asked the court to set DATE as DATE of the termination of his employment ( sudski raskid ugovora o radu ) . On DATE it also sought reimbursement of the severance pay the applicant had received .

On DATE ORG ruled that the applicant ’s dismissal from work had been unlawful and that his employment had never been terminated . It ordered the applicant ’s reinstatement and awarded him compensation for lost salary . At the same time it ordered the applicant to reimburse the severance pay he had received , and dismissed the remainder of the employer ’s counterclaim .

On DATE PERSON ) reversed the first - instance judgment in the part ordering the applicant ’s reinstatement and decided that his employment had been terminated on DATE . It also awarded the applicant damages . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for unemployment benefit for the period after DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim , finding that it had been lodged outside the time - limit from the termination of his employment on DATE , as provided by LAW ( hereinafter “ LAW ” ) .

The applicant appealed to ORG of ORG ( PERSON , ORG , hereinafter “ the LOC ” ) . In particular , he contended that the time - limit for lodging the unemployment benefit claim should not have been calculated from DATE , given that the termination of his employment had only been established by ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG , acting as a second - instance administrative authority , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of ORG . It also noted that the applicant himself had informed ORG of the outcome of the labour dispute , and had communicated with CARDINAL of its officials on DATE and DATE . He had also been informed of the consequences of PERSON judgment setting DATE as DATE of the termination of his employment .

In an administrative claim the applicant argued that he had only learned about DATE of the termination of his employment after receiving PERSON judgment in DATE , and that the time - limit for lodging the unemployment benefit claim should have been calculated from DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s administrative claim and upheld the administrative authorities’ decisions .

A subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG found that the applicant had not been due unemployment benefit from DATE . Given that the applicant had already reimbursed part of the unduly received sum , it ordered him to reimburse the rest within DATE of receipt of the decision at issue .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG , save in the part concerning the start of the deadline for the applicant having to pay back the money . In particular , it ordered him to reimburse the funds within DATE of the receipt of his compensation for lost salary .

On DATE ORG dismissed an administrative claim by the applicant and upheld the administrative authorities’ decisions . It found that according to the civil courts’ rulings in the labour dispute the applicant had not been entitled to unemployment benefit for the period up to DATE . It further found that his unemployment benefit claim for the period after DATE had already been dismissed in another set of proceedings .

A constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

In DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , hereinafter “ the Fund ” ) , to obtain an early retirement pension .

On DATE the Fund granted him an early retirement pension of HRK DATE from DATE . The applicant has been receiving that pension since .


Violation of Article 12 - Right to marry (Article 12 - Found a family;Marry);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE . In DATE he was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . At the relevant time the applicant was serving his sentence in a prison .

On DATE , following a request submitted by the applicant ’s wife in accordance with LAW , the local civil status registry dissolved their marriage . The applicant was sent a notification about the divorce .

Later in DATE the applicant and his new female partner , PERSON , were prevented from marrying as the applicant had not obtained a divorce certificate , as required by LAW . That document could be obtained exclusively by the applicant at the relevant civil status registry .

The applicant requested that he be escorted to the registry in order to obtain the divorce certificate . His request was refused as the domestic law did not provide for the escorting of prisoners on such grounds .

On DATE the prosecutor informed the applicant that under LAW he had the right to remarry after he had obtained a divorce certificate . However , this would be possible only after his release from prison .

On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG considered a complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the authorities’ failure to provide him with a divorce certificate for the purpose of remarriage . He stated that under domestic law it was not possible to carry out the relevant actions in prison ; nor was it possible to issue a power of attorney for another person to act on behalf of the applicant in relation to that matter . The Deputy PERSON informed the applicant that amendments to the domestic legislation had been prepared .

On DATE and DATE the ORG informed the applicant that they were aware of that issue and that amendments to the domestic legislation had been prepared by ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that he would be able to obtain a divorce certificate after his release from prison . The amendments to the domestic legislation had yet to be considered .

On DATE ORG issued Order no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL providing for a temporary procedure for registering divorces and issuing divorce certificates in prisons .

NORP In DATE the applicant was personally informed of the procedure introduced by ORG .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , he was provided with a divorce certificate in prison .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON applied for the registration of their marriage . On DATE the local civil status registry registered their marriage .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Examination of the case);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She is the mother of PERSON , who was born in DATE .

The applicant ’s property at TIME GPE in GPE , a village in the NORP district of Grozny in GPE , comprised a house , shed and courtyard . At the material time , it was under reconstruction after being heavily damaged during one of the NORP military campaigns . Her daughter PERSON , who worked for the PERSON office of ORG , a NORP NGO , regularly stayed at the property for various periods .

The applicant did not witness her daughter ’s abduction . Her account of the events is based on information obtained from her neighbours in GPE .

On DATE , while PERSON was at the applicant ’s property on GPE , the law - enforcement authorities launched a special operation in the village , aimed at eliminating members of illegal armed groups . During the operation a man hid in the applicant ’s property , which was blocked and shelled until it caught fire . As the house was burning down , PERSON was pushed into a UAZ vehicle and taken away . After the house burnt to the ground , law - enforcement officers recovered a man ’s body . Shortly thereafter the NORP President , PERSON PERSON , and the NORP Minister of the Interior , PERSON , arrived at the property . Mr PERSON , among other things , gave an interview to the local media , saying that a member of illegal armed groups had been “ liquidated ” in the applicant ’s house .

The applicant has had no news of her daughter since her disappearance .

NORP In reply to the ORG ’s request for information of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG stated that the criminal case file concerning PERSON PERSON disappearance ( see paragraph CARDINAL et seq . below ) contained information suggesting that on DATE a special operation had been conducted in GPE . However , there was no indication that the applicant ’s daughter had been arrested in the course of that operation .

NORP In observations of DATE , the Government also submitted that the operation carried out on DATE by the lawenforcement authorities was also called “ operational - search activities ” ( оперативно-розыскные мероприятия ) . In conducting them , they had blocked PERSON . , a member of illegal armed groups , into TIME PERSON and had “ eliminated ” him . PERSON had not been seen or arrested during these events and her body had never been found .

On DATE the press office of ORG ( ORG внутренних дел Чеченской республики ) ( hereinafter “ the NORP MVD ” ) published information on its official website concerning the special operation conducted in GPE . The relevant part of the press release reads as follows :

“ DATE , in the course of a special operation in a house in LOC of PERSON , [ ORG ] officers located and liquidated a member of illegal armed groups . [ In response to ] the ORG request to surrender his weapons the criminal offered armed resistance . The criminal was hiding in a house which , in the ensuing fight , was set on fire ... The criminal was liquidated .

According to the Minister of the ORG , PERSON , the fighting continued for TIME ...

The special operation aimed at liquidating the member of illegal armed groups was conducted under the command of the President of GPE , PERSON ... At the moment a group of investigators is working at the crime scene ... ”

The online press release was accompanied by a video . It showed , from different angles , a redbrick house under reconstruction burning down with CARDINAL armed men wearing khaki green and black and blue camouflage uniforms surrounding it , pointing their guns and moving around . It also showed some firemen extinguishing the fire , a fire engine and several other vehicles parked nearby and a number of armed men in camouflage uniforms and plain - clothed men gathered in the vicinity . The applicant furnished the ORG with a recording of the video . She identified the burning building as her house at DATE GPE in GPE .

On DATE an investigator from the NORP inter - district investigation department of the investigation committee at the prosecutor ’s office of GPE in GPE ( ORG межрайонный отдел следственного комитета по PERSON ) ( hereinafter “ the NORP investigation department ” or “ the investigation department ” ) reported to his superiors that at TIME he had been informed about the “ liquidation ” of PERSON . , a member of illegal armed groups , at TIME in LOC of PERSON . PERSON . had been surrounded at the address at TIME

TIME the investigator , with the assistance of an expert and in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses , examined the crime scene .

On DATE the investigation department informed the Minister of the ORG that at TIME on DATE the lawenforcement authorities had surrounded PERSON . at TIME in LOC of ORG . He had offered armed resistance to the law - enforcement officers and had been “ liquidated ” as a result of the ensuing fight . The Minister was asked to examine the circumstances of Mr A.Kh . ’s “ liquidation ” and to inform the investigators of any decisions taken .

On DATE the investigation department refused to institute criminal proceedings into PERSON . ’s death , on the grounds that he had resisted arrest and the law - enforcement officers had acted in selfdefence . The decision referred to statements by CARDINAL residents of Second Darvina Lane , including the applicant . They stated , among other things , that PERSON and her brother PERSON had lived at CARDINAL Second Darvina Lane and that the house had been under reconstruction . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE police officers had sealed off the area , including the applicant ’s house . They had opened fire and the house had burnt down . The applicant submitted that at TIME she had received a call from her neighbour , PERSON He had told her that a special operation had been carried out in the village , during which a man had entered her property . Her house had been burnt down and her daughter had been pushed into a UAZ vehicle and taken to an unknown destination . The decision did not specify which law - enforcement agencies had carried out the operation .

At the ORG ’s request , on DATE the Government submitted information and CARDINAL pages of documents from case file no . DATE opened into PERSON disappearance and containing details of the proceedings DATE and DATE .

Following the ORG ’s subsequent request to submit an entire copy of case file no . DATE at the communication stage , the Government furnished a further CARDINAL pages of documents containing details of the proceedings DATE and DATE . The documents were unnumbered and contained new documents relating to the period DATE to CARDINAL DATE , which had not been submitted in DATE . A significant number of documents , including witness statements such as those by the applicant ’s neighbours from GPE , were only partially submitted , in that only the pages containing their names and addresses were provided . Some of the documents were illegible .

On DATE the Government submitted additional observations on the merits of the case along with an CARDINAL-page “ ... copy of the criminal case - file not including the questioning records of several [ police ] servicemen containing classified personal data . However , these servicemen did not provide any information of importance to the investigation ... ”

On DATE the applicant provided a statement to police captain Mr DATE at the NORP district department of the interior ( ORG районный отдел внутренних дел ) ( hereinafter “ the LAW ) . She stated that on DATE she had received a telephone call from her neighbour PERSON , who had told her that as a result of a special operation conducted on GPE , her house had been burnt down and her daughter had been taken away in a ORG vehicle . There had been no news of her daughter since .

On DATE the acting NORP district prosecutor forwarded the applicant ’s abduction complaint of DATE to the investigation department , instructing it to examine it .

NORP In observations of CARDINAL DATE the ORG stated that “ the authorities became aware of PERSON disappearance on CARDINAL DATE ” .

On DATE the NORP investigation department extended the time - limit for examining the applicant ’s complaint to CARDINAL DATE . The decision stated that the investigators had interviewed the applicant and sent various queries to ORG , and that further steps were to be taken such as a crime scene examination and witness identification and questioning , including of the applicant ’s neighbour PERSON and the officers who had conducted the special operation on DATE .

On DATE the Leninskiy ROVD forwarded the applicant ’s abduction complaint to the NORP investigation department . According to the applicant , in the complaint to the ROVD and explanatory letter , both of which were dated DATE , the date had been subsequently changed to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the NORP investigation department opened a criminal investigation into PERSON abduction under LAW of LAW ( aggravated abduction ) . The case file was given the number DATE . The decision stated that from the applicant ’s complaint lodged on DATE it appeared that at TIME on DATE unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms driving a UAZ vehicle had abducted PERSON from CARDINAL Second Darvina Lane in LOC of ORG and had taken her to an unknown destination . DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .

The authorities questioned a significant number of witnesses after the investigation was opened . These included the applicant ’s neighbours , the workers who had carried out the reconstruction work on the applicant ’s house , several police officers from the LOC department of the interior ( Аргунский отдел внутренних дел ) ( hereinafter “ the GPE ” ) , who had participated in the special operation , the firemen who had put out the house fire , PERSON colleagues and the applicant ’s relatives in GPE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , who stated that before being abducted her daughter had lived at CARDINAL Second Darvina Lane , which had been under reconstruction . She had worked for the ORG office of ORG . The applicant ’s son PERSON had stayed with PERSON on several occasions . TIME and TIME on CARDINAL DATE the GPE neighbour , PERSON , had told her over the telephone that at TIME the law - enforcement authorities had conducted a special operation in the village . In the course of the operation a man had rushed into the applicant ’s courtyard , her house had been burnt to the ground and her daughter had been forced into a UAZ vehicle and taken to an unknown destination .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who stated , among other things , that between TIME on DATE she had spoken to her daughter on the telephone about the reroofing of the house , which was being done by workers that day . She had tried to call her after lunch , but there had been no answer . At CARDINAL p.m. her neighbour PERSON had told her over the telephone that officers of the police or the military forces had carried out a special operation in the village , during which her house had been burnt down and a man ’s body had been recovered from the ruins . During the operation the officers had stopped residents from leaving their houses . PERSON had seen through a window several officers in camouflage uniforms armed with assault rifles pushing a woman wearing a well - worn pink dressing gown into a UAZ vehicle and driving away . He had recognised the woman as Ms PERSON by what she had been wearing . The applicant said that another neighbour , PERSON , had told her that one of the men in camouflage uniform who had been in her house during the operation had asked over his portable radio “ whether the others had shown the body to the woman ” . At that very moment she had heard a woman scream . The man had asked his colleagues if they had put the woman into the car , which they had confirmed . After that , the man had told PERSON that “ they had killed the devil ” , that she could now relax and that they were leaving . While at Ms Z.S.’ house , the man in camouflage had asked her numerous questions about the PERSON family and their connections and occupations . The applicant also submitted that PERSON lived in GPE and on DATE he had come to GPE to visit his brother , Mr A.M.

DATE the investigators also questioned construction workers Mr A.Yu . Zh . , Mr A.A.D. , Mr A.V.L. , PERSON and Mr A.Yu . A. , all of whom confirmed that since DATE they had been doing repair work on the applicant ’s house where PERSON , and occasionally her brother PERSON , had lived . All of the workers stated that the last time they had seen PERSON was on DATE and that they had learnt of the special operation that evening . When they had arrived at the applicant ’s house at QUANTITY , there had been a large group of law - enforcement officers inspecting the property and the surrounding area . The officers had asked them questions about the owners of the house and whether they knew anything about their connections and habits . According to the workers , they had learnt of PERSON PERSON abduction from the police officers . When questioned again by the investigators , some of the workers changed their initial statements and told them that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicant .

DATE the investigators also questioned QUANTITY police officers from FAC , all of whom stated that at CARDINAL p.m. on DATE CARDINAL officers from their police station had been sent to QUANTITY Second PERSON following a tip - off that PERSON . , a member of illegal armed groups , had been hiding there . On arrival , some of them had surrounded the house while others had waited in a neighbouring courtyard . Officers of other law - enforcement agencies had also participated in the operation . PERSON . had been asked to surrender ; in response he had opened fire . A grenade had exploded in the yard and there had then been intensive gunfire and the house had been stormed . The building had caught fire and firemen had subsequently put it out . The burnt remains of a man had been found among the ruins . All of the police officers denied having seen PERSON or having any knowledge of her abduction .

On DATE the investigators questioned taxi driver Mr PERSON . PERSON He stated that at TIME on DATE he had picked up PERSON to take her shopping and had seen some workers , including Mr A.M.D. , repairing the roof . He had taken her back home at TIME That evening he had met ORG , who had told him about the special operation on LOC . At QUANTITY PERSON . PERSON had called PERSON , but her mobile telephone had been switched off .

On DATE the investigators questioned another construction worker , Mr A.M.B. , who stated that after lunch on DATE Ms PERSON had returned home with a taxi driver , PERSON . PERSON After he had left , they had talked in the shed over a cup of tea , and at TIME she had gone in the house and he had carried on working . TIME he had heard heavy footsteps in the courtyard and had seen CARDINAL unmasked men in camouflage uniforms , all armed with assault rifles . CARDINAL of them had asked him in NORP “ Where has he gone ? ” to which the witness had replied “ Who are you talking about ? I am working here ” . Shortly thereafter something had exploded inside the house and there had then been intensive gunfire . The witness had heard someone shout in NORP “ Throw grenades , protect our men ! ” The officers had been shooting at the house and the witness had shouted “ Why are you shooting at the house ? There is a woman inside ! ” , but no one had paid any attention . After the shooting had stopped , the witness had managed to make his way outside the courtyard , where he had seen officers sealing off the area , ready for a further shootout . An officer at the gate had ordered him to leave . Several moments later the witness had called PERSON on her mobile telephone , but there had been no answer .

On various dates DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of the applicant ’s neighbours . Most of them confirmed that a special operation had taken place on GPE on DATE and that the area had been sealed off by the security forces , but denied having seen PERSON being taken away . PERSON . A. , who lived at QUANTITY LOC , was questioned on CARDINAL DATE . She stated that at TIME on DATE she had seen a large group of men on the street armed with assault rifles and wearing camouflage uniforms , and a UAZ vehicle . One of the officers had ordered her to get back inside the house and close the door . Shortly thereafter she had heard intensive gunfire and had seen number CARDINAL burning down . DATE , police officers had come to her house to ask , among other things , whether she had known PERSON .

On DATE ( the date on the document appears to be incorrect , see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) the investigators questioned the NORP President PERSON , who stated that “ many ” special operations had been conducted in GPE around that time and that the heads of the law - enforcement agencies reported the results to him . As to the special operation conducted on DATE to eliminate a member of illegal armed groups , PERSON . , he had arrived at the scene at the end of the operation and had seen a burning house and firemen trying to put out the fire . The Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON had reported the results of the operation to him . Mr PERSON said he had not seen anyone at the scene and had no information about PERSON being detained or abducted .

On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL of the applicant ’s neighbours , whose statements did not provide any new information .

On DATE the investigators questioned forensic expert Mr Ma . Ma . , who stated that he had participated in the crime scene examination shortly after the special operation on DATE but had not seen any senior law - enforcement officials or PERSON there , and was unable to name any of the other people who had participated in the crime scene examination that day .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who reiterated her previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . She added that on DATE at the LOC of the NORP investigation department she had spoken to investigator PERSON . , who had been in charge of the investigation into her daughter ’s disappearance and had told her “ your daughter PERSON is alive but we have no access to her ” .

NORP On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL ambulance workers who had arrived at the scene on DATE . Their statements did not provide any new information .

On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the deputy chief of ORG , PERSON . and CARDINAL of his officers , PERSON . They both stated that ORG “ Terek ” of ORG ( отряд милиции специального назначения ) had participated in the operation on DATE .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who stated that her daughter had been unmarried at the time of her abduction and that at some point in DATE she had married someone called Mr PERSON but had divorced him DATE .

On DATE the investigators again questioned Mr A.M.B. , who reiterated his previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators questioned the investigator Mr PERSON . , who stated that in DATE he had told the applicant that her daughter had been alive just to calm her down ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who stated that her daughter had not fallen out with anyone or received any threats and had not been in involved in a blood feud .

On DATE the investigators questioned the head of the NORP town administration , Mr GPE , who stated that he had not participated in the special operation on DATE and nor had his security service or guards .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the NORP President PERSON , who reiterated his previous statement ( see paragraph DATE above ) .

In the course of the investigation , the authorities primarily took the following steps . They ( i ) carried out an examination of the crime scene on several occasions , ( ii ) made requests for information to various law - enforcement agencies and detention centres concerning PERSON possible arrest or detention in GPE and neighbouring regions , and the existence of pending criminal proceedings against her or her possible involvement with members of illegal armed groups , ( iii ) verified whether she had left GPE by plane or train , ( iv ) published a search announcement in the regional media , and ( v ) traced the location of her mobile telephone between CARDINAL and DATE .

DATE . On DATE the deputy head of the NORP investigation department issued orders for the investigators in criminal case no . CARDINAL instructing them to , amongst other things , verify the law - enforcement agencies’ conduct of the special operation on DATE and question its participants concerning the details .

On DATE the investigators wrote to the chief of ORG , asking him to take disciplinary measures against the officers who had failed to comply with the ORG instructions and take the steps requested in criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE the investigators obtained a joint operational report ( оперативная сводка ) from the NORP MVD concerning the events of CARDINAL DATE . The relevant part of the document reads as follows :

GPE . Military clash .

At TIME on DATE the [ ORG ] front desk was informed ... that at TIME on DATE in a deserted CARDINAL - ruined house at TIME , PERSON ... officers from the Argun [ ORG ] , Leninskiy [ ROVD ] , CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the [ ORG ] traffic police and the head of the LOC town administration ’s security service had blocked a member of illegal armed groups , who had offered armed resistance during his apprehension and had been liquidated ...

Present [ during the operation were ] : Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON and deputy Minister of the Interior Mr R.L.E , chief of ORG criminal police PERSON . , chief of the department of the interior Mr Ir . , chief of criminal police at the department of the interior Mr Is . , chief of public security police at the department of the interior Mr Ba . and his deputy PERSON . , acting chief of the criminal investigation directorate at the department of the interior Mr M. , . an investigator from the NORP investigation department PERSON , . the [ entire ] operational investigation group of the [ ORG ] , the operational investigation group of the department of the interior , the LOC district [ of Grozny ] operational investigation group of ORG at ORG of GPE in LOC ... ”

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested that the investigators take a number of steps . These included obtaining copies of the video footage of the special operation and questioning the officials who had been in charge and its participants , the applicant ’s neighbours PERSON , Ms Z.G and PERSON . S , and the construction workers who had carried out the work on the applicant ’s house on GPE . On DATE the investigators granted the request .

On DATE the head of the NORP investigation department wrote to the NORP Minister of the Interior stating , amongst other things :

“ ... [ within the framework of the investigation of criminal case no . DATE ] , on DATE the NORP prosecutor organised a meeting on officers from ORG in PERSON and servicemen from operational - search unit no . CARDINAL of ORG in ORG ( the ORG ) collaborating with the investigation to solve the crime and prosecute the perpetrators .

However , officers from ORG in PERSON have not been providing operational support ... repeated requests for information to the chief of ORG [ have met with ] formal and incomplete replies ... [ even though ] in reply to the repeated request of DATE it was stated that the police officers had examined the crime scene again and had found burnt passports , CARDINAL for use in GPE ( internal ) and another ( foreign ) CARDINAL for use abroad . However , at the time of writing this evidence and the relevant documents have not been provided to the investigators of the criminal case ...

[ As ] to our request of DATE concerning the identities of the servicemen who participated in the special operation and the conclusions of the internal inquiry , on DATE a formal reply was given ... which did not contain any meaningful information ; the information and documents requested were not submitted .

On DATE we sent another request for information concerning the officers who participated in the special operation and the conclusions of the internal inquiry . To the present date no reply has been given .

[ As ] to our repeated requests of CARDINAL and DATE concerning the identities of the officers who participated in the special operation ... no reply has been given . Officers from the Argun OVD Mr M.B. , Mr D.V. , Mr ORG and Mr R.Akh , who participated in the operation and whose identities were established by the investigators , refused to give statements to the investigation ...

Thus , at the time of writing the investigation either does not have information concerning the persons who participated in the special operation ( their names , service positions and ranks ) or documents confirming its lawfulness .

In connection with the above , you are requested to personally supervise execution of the requests in the criminal case and provide full and timely replies to the requests for information and operational steps . You are also requested to order an internal inquiry in connection with the violations of criminal procedure law by your subordinates in the [ relevant ] police departments ... ”

On DATE the investigators requested the chief of ORG to provide , amongst other things , the following information :

“ ... according to the reply received by the investigation in criminal case no . DATE to its request for information of DATE , the following [ CARDINAL ] officers from the criminal search division of ORG participated in the special operation on DATE : PERSON Ya . , PERSON , PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr GPE , Mr Dz . PERSON , Mr E.A. , Mr PERSON , Mr R.Akh . , Mr Kh . O. and Mr PERSON .

Based on this information , you are requested to ensure these officers [ attend ] the NORP investigation committee at FAC , ORG to be questioned as witnesses . You are also requested to forward me documents confirming the lawfulness of the special operation ... the order to conduct the operation and a copy of the results of the internal inquiry carried out into the matter ... ”

On DATE the acting chief of ORG replied to the investigators that they had no information concerning PERSON abduction and that the officers mentioned in the request of QUANTITY DATE had been instructed to give statements to the investigators . In an additional letter of the same date , ORG informed the investigators that no internal inquiries had been carried out in connection with the special operation conducted on DATE as “ there were no violations of the law and no officers from ORG had been injured ” .

On DATE the applicant repeated the request for the officials in charge of the special operation on DATE to be questioned . On DATE the investigators replied that they would question them as soon as they had established their identities .

On DATE the applicant requested that the investigators question , amongst others , NORP President PERSON , as he had information on the special operation . On DATE the investigators granted the request .

On DATE the investigators reported to their superiors that they had been unable to interview Mr PERSON , who had been in charge of the special operation on DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to the NORP investigation department that PERSON had not been questioned and that the investigators had failed to take the procedural steps ordered on DATE . On DATE the investigators refused to allow the complaint stating , amongst other things , that according to CARDINAL other witnesses who had been present during the special operation , PERSON had not been there .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer reiterated his request for the investigators to take a number of steps such as obtaining copies of the video footage of the special operation , identifying and questioning all of the participants , asking the drivers of the ORG vehicles whether they had seen PERSON being forced into one of them , and questioning the NORP Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON concerning the law - enforcement agencies who had participated in the operation and the firemen who had put out the house fire afterwards . On DATE the investigators granted the request .

On an unspecified date in DATE senior operational - search officer Mr ORG provided the investigators with an information statement on the operational - search measures taken in the criminal case . The relevant part reads as follows :

“ ... It has been established by operational - search measures that at TIME on DATE servicemen from ORG , the CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the NORP town administration security service conducted a special operation , as a result of which an active member of illegal armed groups PERSON . was found . He resisted arrest and ... was eliminated as a result ... It has also been established that in this household PERSON . had lived with his wife , PERSON , whose whereabouts after the special operation remain unknown ... ”

On DATE the NORP deputy prosecutor criticised the investigation into PERSON disappearance and ordered the investigators to take a number of remedial measures :

“ ... On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators ... An examination of the case file has demonstrated that this decision was unfounded and premature ; it was taken prior to all the investigative steps being taken ...

... the criminal case has been investigated by several investigators for DATE , however , an effective investigation has not been carried out , the whereabouts of the abducted PERSON have not been established , and sufficiently effective steps to identify the culprits have not been taken ...

Up to the present date the servicemen of the law - enforcement agencies who took part in the special operation ... have not all been identified and questioned .

From the operational statement of ORG of DATE it appears that servicemen of the CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the NORP town administration security service participated in the liquidation of PERSON . , but [ they ] have not been identified and questioned .

The requests of the applicant , PERSON , for access to the investigation file have been granted , but her representatives have not been provided [ it ] ...

In addition , the applicant ’s representative requested that the investigators take certain investigative steps such as seizure and examination of the video footage posted on ORG of the Interior ’s website concerning the special operation ... identifying the person who filmed the operation ... those steps have not been taken .

In violation of LAW , no measures have been taken to identify the perpetrators for a long time ...

... In addition , the investigation has not taken sufficient steps to identify key witness PERSON who , according to the applicant , called her to say that PERSON had been taken away by the unidentified servicemen who had participated in the special operation against A.Kh . PERSON has not been questioned about those circumstances . In addition , the brother of the abducted PERSON , PERSON , has not been identified and questioned .

Based on the above , the decision to suspend the investigation in criminal case no . DATE is unlawful and should therefore be overruled ... ”

On DATE the NORP deputy prosecutor again criticised the investigation into PERSON disappearance and pointed out that the steps ordered on DATE had not been taken and the orders given had not been complied with . He ordered that the decision to suspend the investigation of DATE be overruled as unlawful and the proceedings be resumed .

On DATE the investigators granted the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE to have PERSON questioned ( see paragraph DATE above ) . The applicant was informed on DATE .

On DATE the investigators collected blood samples from the applicant for genetic testing with the samples in the regional DNA database . On DATE the experts reported that there had been no matches .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the investigators to join the investigation into PERSON disappearance with the investigation into the disappearance of Mr PERSON ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) for the following reasons :

“ ... your department investigating criminal case no . DATE ... initiated in connection with [ PERSON ] abduction during a special operation on Second Darvina Lane in PERSON ... presumably by representatives of the law - enforcement agencies .

On DATE , DATE , at TIME by his house at CARDINAL FAC in the village of PERSON , unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms abducted Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .

In connection with this , the NORP investigation department ... opened criminal case no . DATE , which is also being investigated by your department .

CARDINAL of the investigation ’s theories in criminal case no . DATE is that PERSON . had lived with PERSON , and this served as the reason for [ her ] abduction and questioning by unidentified representatives of the law - enforcement agencies in order to obtain information about him and his activities .

Mr PERSON , who was abducted DATE , is the brother of PERSON , PERSON official wife .

Both abductions therefore took place on the date of the special operation on DATE to eliminate PERSON . , and both of the people abducted had obvious connections with him . PERSON , in whose house PERSON . had been killed , was presumably his cohabitee , and PERSON was the brother of Mr A.Kh . ’s wife .

In connection with this , there are grounds to presume that the abductions of Ms Gaysanova and Mr PERSON , who had been connected to PERSON . , had been perpetrated by the same people ... ”

On DATE the investigators refused the above request as groundless .

DATE . On DATE and DATE the investigators checked the detainee registration log of the NORP ROVD temporary detention ward . There was no indication that PERSON had been detained on the LOC .

On DATE the investigators obtained CARDINAL DVDs from the NORP MVD information centre containing the video footage of the special operation on DATE and incorporated them into the investigation file as evidence .

On DATE the investigators in charge of criminal case no . DATE informed the head of the NORP investigation department that they needed to question the NORP President PERSON again , but were unable to do so as he was too busy . They eventually questioned him on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE an operational - search officer from the criminal search division of ORG , PERSON , provided the investigators with an information statement on the operational - search steps taken in the criminal case . The relevant part reads as follows :

“ ... It has been established by operational - search measures that at TIME on DATE servicemen from ORG , the CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the NORP town administration security service conducted a special operation , as a result of which an active member of illegal armed groups , PERSON . , was found . He resisted arrest and [ was ] therefore eliminated ... It has also been established that in that household PERSON . had lived with his wife , PERSON , whose whereabouts after the special operation remain unknown ...

PERSON was not officially married ...

CARDINAL theories were proposed within the framework of the operational - search activities :

PERSON was detained by servicemen of the law - enforcement agencies owing to her possible involvement in illegal armed groups ;

PERSON was hiding from the police to avoid prosecution for being a member of illegal armed groups ... ”

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators established that on CARDINAL DATE PERSON had had various telephone conversations , one of which had been with PERSON . , who had subsequently been killed during the special operation .

On DATE the NORP investigation department issued a formal warning ( представление ) to the chief of ORG . It stated that the police department had not carried out any of the investigative steps ordered by the investigators , and had thereby hampered the investigation and precluded it from establishing the circumstances of PERSON PERSON abduction . The chief was instructed to take the necessary steps to remedy the shortcomings and to consider taking disciplinary action against those responsible for the inactivity . On DATE the investigators issued a further order to the police department , stressing that their earlier instructions had not been complied with and urging the chief of ORG to oversee the matter .

On DATE the investigation in case no . DATE was transferred to investigation department no . CARDINAL ( Serious Crimes ) of the investigation committee at the prosecutor ’s office of GPE in GPE ( следственный комитет по PERSON ) ( hereinafter “ investigation department no . CARDINAL ” ) .

On DATE it was decided that the investigation was to be conducted by a group of investigators because there was evidence to suggest that members of the security forces had been involved in Ms PERSON abduction . The group was to consist of investigators from the NORP investigation department , investigation department no . CARDINAL and officers from LOC .

DATE . On DATE the investigators requested that the time - limit for the investigation in case no . DATE be extended owing to the number of investigative steps to be taken . The document stated that the investigation had been severely hampered by the persistent refusal of the lawenforcement authorities involved in the operation on DATE to provide information about the officers who had participated .

On DATE the investigators requested the Minister of the ORG to personally oversee execution of the requests they had addressed to his subordinates in connection with the investigation in case no . DATE . The letter stressed that ORG , FAC , the CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the ORG traffic police and the Minister himself had persistently disregarded the ORG repeated requests for information concerning the officers who had participated in the special operation on DATE . Moreover , officers Mr M.A.B , PERSON , PERSON and Mr R.Z.A. from FAC , who it had been established had taken part in the operation , had blatantly refused to be questioned . The Minister was asked to look into the matter and take disciplinary action in connection with this .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE then suspended again on DATE . The proceedings were resumed each time following criticism from the supervising prosecutor ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

On DATE the applicant requested access to the investigation file . On CARDINAL DATE the investigators refused her request as she was not entitled to familiarise herself with the contents of the file until completion of the investigation . The applicant appealed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the investigation was resumed but suspended DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer appealed and on DATE the proceedings were resumed .

On DATE the investigation was again suspended . It was resumed on DATE for failure to take a number of steps .

On DATE the investigation was again resumed but suspended on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the investigation was again resumed owing to the need to take a number of steps such as questioning the head of the NORP town administration on his security guards’ participation in the special operation on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On an unspecified date in DATE the proceedings were suspended .

On DATE the investigation was resumed then suspended again on DATE .

On DATE the investigation was resumed owing to the need to take a number of steps such as questioning the NORP President PERSON PERSON and the applicant ’s neighbour PERSON and verifying whether PERSON PERSON had left GPE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again . It appears from the documents submitted that it is pending .

On DATE the applicant provided a statement to local human rights lawyers from ORG ( PERSON ) ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) . She stated that at TIME on DATE she had received a call from her neighbour PERSON who had informed her , amongst other things , that a special operation had taken place in their neighbourhood and her house had been burnt down as a result , that the armed men who had carried out the operation had taken away her daughter and that a man ’s body had been found among the ruins by the firemen . At TIME that evening the applicant had gone to LOC , where investigator Mr PERSON G. had taken a statement from her about the abduction . The chief of ORG , who had introduced himself as Mr PERSON , had then told her that the man ’s body found among the ruins had belonged to PERSON PERSON husband and that he had no information about who had carried out the special operation . On DATE the applicant had lodged an official written abduction complaint with ORG . On the same date she had spoken to several of her neighbours , including PERSON , all of whom had told her that on DATE a large group of armed men had carried out a special operation in the vicinity of her house , there had been a shooting and her house had been burnt down . Afterwards , a man ’s body had been discovered . The NORP President PERSON PERSON and Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON had arrived at the scene and had given interviews that an illegal armed fighter had been eliminated in the applicant ’s house .

On DATE the applicant provided another statement to the ORG lawyers . She reiterated her previous statement and added that on TIME CARDINAL DATE she had been told by CARDINAL men in darkcoloured PERSON cars with blacked out windows that they had been guarding the ruins of her house for the crime scene examination . More representatives of law - enforcement agencies had then arrived at the scene . The applicant provided the lawyers with the names and telephone numbers of the workers who had worked on her house prior to the events of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON . , Mr DATE , PERSON , PERSON and brothers PERSON Al . A. and PERSON . A.

On DATE the applicant provided another statement to the ORG lawyers . She stressed that on TIME of DATE she had complained about her daughter ’s abduction in person at PERSON DATE had lodged a written complaint with the police department , having gone there with CARDINAL of her relatives , PERSON GPE , PERSON . G and Mr PERSON The following day she had lodged abduction complaints with the LOC district and NORP investigation departments , as well as the NORP district prosecutor ’s office and NORP prosecutor ’s office . On DATE she had given a statement concerning the abduction to Mr Magomed T. , an investigator from the NORP district investigation department .

On DATE the ORG lawyers took a statement from CARDINAL of Ms ORG ’s colleagues from ORG , Mr GPE , who stated that on DATE , after the events at the applicant ’s house , he had taken the applicant to PERSON in PERSON . She had been crying , saying that her daughter had gone missing and her house had been burnt down .

On DATE the ORG lawyers took a statement from the applicant ’s relatives , PERSON . PERSON , Mr GPE and Mr GPE , whose accounts of the events of DATE were similar to that of the applicant . In addition , the witnesses stated that on DATE a crime scene examination group consisting of several forensic experts had gone through the ruins of the applicant ’s burnt house . All of the witnesses confirmed that on DATE they and the applicant had gone to ORG , where the applicant had given a written statement concerning her daughter ’s abduction to the policeman on duty .

On DATE the applicant requested the NORP district investigation department in ORG to initiate a criminal investigation into possible forgery , claiming that the date of her abduction complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been unlawfully changed from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In reply to her request , on DATE the department refused her request , as it was impossible to establish when the correction had been made to the document . The refusal was subsequently overruled but adopted again on CARDINAL occasions . The last refusal to initiate criminal proceedings into the matter was taken on DATE .

On CARDINAL occasions , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the applicant complained to ORG of Grozny that the investigators had refused to grant her access to the case file concerning the investigation into her daughter ’s disappearance . On DATE and DATE the court allowed her complaints .

On DATE LOC of ORG rejected a complaint by the applicant made on DATE concerning the ORG refusal to question Mr PERSON due to his absence from the crime scene , in spite of widespread media coverage to the contrary ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court held that on DATE the refusal had already been overruled by the deputy head of the NORP investigation department .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers complained to the head of the NORP investigation department that the investigation into PERSON PERSON abduction had been suspended unlawfully , requesting that the proceedings be resumed and a number of steps be taken . In particular , they pointed out the following :

“ ... according to the criminal case file , the investigators have been verifying the theory that representatives of power structures were involved in PERSON abduction . The investigation established that the following servicemen had participated in the special operation ( according to the operational information note of DATE , volume CARDINAL , page CARDINAL of the case file ) :

the ORG department of the interior ( ORG )

the NORP district department of the interior in PERSON ( ROVD )

the CARDINALth regiment of ORG of the NORP traffic police

the head of the NORP town administration security service

Also , from the same document it follows that the crime scene had been visited by senior officials of the NORP law - enforcement agencies and operational investigation groups :

NORP Minister of the Interior , PERSON ;

NORP deputy Minister of the ORG , Mr E ;

chief of the PERSON department of the interior ( ORG ) , PERSON ;

chief of the criminal search division of ORG , PERSON . ;

[ the entire ] operational investigation group of ORG of the ORG ;

operational investigation group of ORG ; and

operational investigation group of LOC .

From the video footage made by the press office of ORG , which has been incorporated into the case file , it is noticeable that a large number of representatives of the law - enforcement agencies participated in the special operation . However , as at DATE ’s date , not all of the servicemen from FAC who participated in the special operation have been identified and questioned . At the same time , the statements given by the servicemen who had been questioned by the investigation , are very alike , almost copies of , the reports given by these servicemen to the chief of ORG . In addition , the servicemen from the other regiments have not been identified and questioned by the investigation . The persons in charge of the operation have not been questioned either , even though from the video of the special operation it appears that next to the applicant ’s house were the Minister of the ORG and a group of officers from ORG .

In addition , the supervising prosecutor ’s orders ( of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) have not been complied with ...

... according to the evidence examination report of DATE ( pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the file ) ... the video footage of the special operation on DATE can not be found on ORG website . However , the investigators could examine the video footage presented by the applicant ’s lawyers ( see ... request of CARDINAL DATE , volume CARDINAL , pages CARDINAL ) which was made from the video posted on the ORG website . This examination has not been carried out . It is necessary to examine this footage with the assistance of the police in order to identify the participants of the special operation on DATE ... ”

On DATE the investigators refused to grant the request , but on DATE the deputy head of the NORP investigation department overruled that refusal and ordered that the request be granted .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers requested that the investigators take a number of steps including questioning the head of the NORP town administration , an examination of the video footage of the special operation of DATE , establishing which vehicles had been used during the operation and questioning the senior police officials and other officers who had participated . The applicant ’s request also contained the following :

“ ... from the replies of the acting head of the NORP MVD headquarters to the ORG requests it appears that ... the applicant ’s complaint concerning her daughter ’s abduction , which was received by the police department on DATE at TIME , stated that PERSON had left herself in an unknown destination and that the police had not received any complaints about her being abducted by unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms driving around in ORG vehicles . At the same time , in [ the actual ] complaint lodged by the applicant with the police department stated that PERSON had been abducted by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms right after the special operation conducted on DATE ( see volume CARDINAL , page CARDINAL of the investigation file ) . In connection with this it is necessary to question the acting head of the NORP MVD headquarters to find out why he had provided false information to the investigators and what information they have concerning PERSON departure on her own to an unknown destination ...

... It is also necessary to find out ... whether PERSON was the wife of [ the man eliminated during the special operation ] PERSON . and to question officer PERSON , who had prepared a report to this end ( no . CARDINAL ) concerning the sources of that information ... ”

On DATE the investigators granted the request in part , but did not specify which steps would be taken .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyers requested that the investigators examine the video footage of the special operation which could be found in the archives section of ORG official website and question the persons who had filmed the events . The lawyers provided the link to the footage and stated that the video contained clear images of the participants in the special operation . On CARDINAL DATE the investigators informed the applicant that they would grant this request but did not specify when and to what extent .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyers requested that the investigators question the NORP Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON , as video footage of the special operation attested to his presence during the events , and ask him about the other participants in the operation . On DATE the applicant was informed that the request had been granted .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers wrote to the investigators to say that PERSON had been a user of an online social networking site , PERSON ( « PERSON ) . The last visit to her account had been on DATE , after her abduction . In this connection , the lawyers requested that the investigators find out , amongst other things , the account activity since DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the investigators informed the applicant that they had granted her request . It appears from the documents submited that the requested action was not taken .

On DATE the investigators refused to grant the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE for access to the case file , stating that it had been lodged by her lawyer and not by the applicant herself .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer again requested the investigators to grant him permission to access the investigation file , stressing that he had been representing the applicant in accordance with the criminal procedure law and forms of authority . His request was granted DATE .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . Mr NORP lives in GPE . The other applicants live in LOC . According to the applicants’ submissions , which were not contested by the Government , at the time of the lodging of the application , they were serving the prison sentences arising out of their criminal convictions which gave rise to the present application .

On DATE and DATE CARDINAL members of ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , an illegal organisation , were killed in a rural area within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of GPE , near the city of GPE , by members of the security forces .

On DATE a gathering was held in protest at the alleged unlawful killings of CARDINAL and DATE in GPE . University students from ORG , including the applicants , gathered in front of the building of LOC ve PERSON ) where a press statement was read out .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , attended another reading out of a press statement in GPE . The press statement concerned the killings of CARDINAL and DATE , the arrest of a number of persons subsequent to the reading out of the press statement on DATE and the alleged unlawful killing of a detainee by the police .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against CARDINAL people , including the applicants , charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( Law no . ORG ) . According to the indictment , during the gathering of DATE , slogans such as “ Long live revolutionary solidarity ” ( “ NORP devrimci dayanışma ” ) , “ We have paid a price . We will make them pay a price . ” ( “ Bedel ödedik , bedel ödeteceğiz . ” ) , “ ORG ” ( “ QUANTITY ” ) , “ NORP martyrs are immortal ” ( “ Devrim şehitleri ölümsüzdür . ” ) , “ Martyrs are immortal ” ( “ ORG namırın ” ) , were chanted and the applicants participated in the gathering . The public prosecutor further noted that ORG had participated in the gathering of DATE , during which the following slogans had been chanted : “ No emancipation alone , either all of us or none of us . ” ( “ GPE yok tek başına , ya hep beraber ya hiçbirimiz . ) ” , “ Arrests , provocations and coercion can not discourage us . ” ( “ PERSON , provakasyonlar , baskılar bizi yıldıramaz . ” ) , “ We will resist and succeed ” ( “ GPE direne kazanacağız . ” ) , “ We have paid a price ; we will make them pay a price . ” “ Bedel ödedik , bedel ödeteceğiz ” ) .

On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to QUANTITY months’ imprisonment pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , except for PERSON , who was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . As regards the gathering of DATE , the assize court found it established that the slogan “ Martyrs are immortal ” had been chanted by PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON and that the slogans “ The murderer state will pay the price ” , “ NORP martyrs are immortal ” and “ Long live revolutionary solidarity ” had been chanted by PERSON Yaşar Çalışkan , Mr PERSON and PERSON . The court also found it established that all the applicants except for PERSON Olcay ORG had chanted the slogan “ We have paid a price ; we will make them pay a price ” and that PERSON had carried a banner bearing the slogan “ ORG are immortal ” . As regards the gathering of DATE , the court noted that ORG had chanted the slogans “ Arrests , provocations and coercion can not discourage us . ” , “ We will resist and succeed ” and “ We have paid a price ; we will make them pay a price . ” during that public gathering .

In its judgment , ORG referred to LAW as well as to the ORG ’s judgment in the case of NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) and the report of ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . ORG report of DATE ) . The court held that by chanting the above - mentioned slogans the applicants had not exercised their democratic rights but had glorified terror by adopting the style of discourse of terror organisations and that they had not distanced themselves from violence . In the court ’s view , by chanting those slogans the applicants had not intended to find a solution to a problem but had praised and glorified the source of the problem , that is to say , the terrorist organisations concerned . Hence , the applicants had incited terror . ORG concluded that chanting the slogans in question could not be considered as falling within the scope of the right to freedom of expression .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in so far as it concerned the applicants’ conviction .

On unspecified dates the applicants served their prison sentences .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano

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

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

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

On DATE ORG ( PERSON za povraćaj i obeštećenje PERSON ; hereinafter “ the Commission ” ) awarded the applicant and her co - claimants a total amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as compensation for the property which had been expropriated from their relatives in DATE and DATE . The applicant herself was awarded CARDINAL of the total amount , that is ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The decision specified that the amount was to be paid within DATE as of the date when the decision became final .

On DATE ORG ( ORG finansija ) declared the ORG ’s decision null and void ( oglašeno je ništavim ) .

On DATE ORG ( Upravni sud ) quashed the decision of ORG . In so doing , the court held , inter alia , that the ORG ’s decision properly ( pravilno ) specified the applicant and her co - claimants as being entitled to the compensation and awarded them the relevant amounts accordingly .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE declared that it lacked competence ( oglašava se nenadležnim ) to decide on the applicant ’s request for enforcement of the ORG ’s decision dated DATE , relying on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG as well as on LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld the said decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG once again declared that it lacked competence to decide on the applicant ’s renewed request for enforcement .

In DATE the Compensation Fund started paying the awarded amount to the applicant in instalments pursuant to the relevant legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . By DATE the applicant had received EUR CARDINAL in total .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant , upon her enquiry , that the frequency of payment was regulated by the relevant statutory provisions and that ORG had no competence to make any changes in that regard .

On DATE the applicant , upon her own request , was issued with bonds ( obveznice ) , the value of which was ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . In DATE she returned the bonds and had her right to pecuniary compensation re - established .

By DATE some of the applicant ’s co - claimants , X and Y , had passed away and the compensation awarded to them had been transferred to and divided amongst their heirs . In particular , X ’s CARDINAL heirs inherited between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and ORG , and out of these sums they received between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG , respectively , in pecuniary compensation and the remainder of the respective amounts in bonds . ORG CARDINAL heirs each inherited EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , out of which they received by DATE ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in pecuniary compensation .

As submitted by the Government , there were CARDINAL requests for restitution and/or compensation in total . ORG received CARDINAL final decisions in favour of compensation , the total value of which amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Of this sum more than LAW was paid in money , and additional LAW in bonds . The bonds worth ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , that is PERCENT of the entire compensation awarded , were used on the market pursuant to section CARDINAL of the relevant legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

As submitted by the applicant PERCENT of the respondent ORG ’s GDP in DATE was EUR CARDINAL and in DATE it was LAW .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW , which entered into force on DATE , provides that ORG applies to proceedings concerning restitution and/or compensation , unless otherwise provided by LAW .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) states that a “ former owner , who has no right to restitution of the property rights [ in integrum ] , can have , in accordance with this law , the right to : ( a ) pecuniary compensation ( obeštećenje novčanim sredstvima ) , which shall be paid from ORG to applicants in proportion to the amount of all the claims registered , within DATE as of the expiration of the time - limit envisaged for submitting requests and , after that , DATE , according to the availability of funds in ORG , until the amounts due are fully paid ; or ( b ) compensation in bonds ( obeštećenje obveznicama ) ” .

Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the bonds can be sold or used for purchase of the stocks , shares and other property of the ORG and ORG funds . The owner of these bonds is entitled to return them to ORG within DATE as of the date when they were obtained , and request that the right to pecuniary compensation be re - established . The owner of the bonds that have expired also has the right to return them and to seek re - establishment of pecuniary compensation . ORG shall issue relevant decisions recognising the right to pecuniary compensation corresponding to the value of the unused bonds .

Section CARDINAL provides that ORG is to decide on restitution / compensation requests and determine , inter alia , the time - period within which the compensation is to be paid ( rok za obeštećenje ) .

Section CARDINAL provides that decisions on pecuniary compensation and compensation in bonds are to be enforced by ORG . The same provision also provides that enforcements ( prinudno izvršenje ) shall be carried out in accordance with LAW .

Section CARDINAL further provides , inter alia , that ORG , a legal entity , shall be established by the Government , and that its organisation and functioning is to be regulated by a Government decree .

The Restitution and Compensation Act was amended in DATE , the relevant changes being as follows .

While LAW ( CARDINAL ) still provides for the right to pecuniary compensation from ORG in proportion to the amount of all the claims , it has now been amended so as to also provide , inter alia , that the total DATE amount of compensation can not be PERCENT of the LOC GDP in DATE , that the compensation is to be paid to claimants in DATE instalments according to the funds available in ORG , and that the periodicity of the payments is to be established by the Government .

Section CARDINAL provides that the bonds can also be used for paying taxes . They can be returned to ORG within DATE as of DATE when they were obtained and their owners can seek that their pecuniary compensation be re - established .

The Act entered into force on CARDINAL DATE .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided , inter alia , that the provisions of this LAW were applicable to the enforcement of administrative decisions ordering pecuniary compensation , unless the law provided for a competence of some other body for such enforcement .

Section CARDINAL provided that the courts were responsible for enforcement unless otherwise provided by law .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that enforcement proceedings were to be dealt with expeditiously .

Section CARDINAL provides that [ other ] institutions and legal entities performing public functions ( u vršenju javnih ovlašćenja ) shall comply with this law when ruling in administrative matters .

Section CARDINAL provides that administrative decisions shall , in principle , be enforced in an administrative manner ( administrative enforcement ) .

Section CARDINAL specifies that both pecuniary and non - pecuniary awards shall be enforced in an administrative manner .

Section CARDINAL provides that administrative pecuniary awards shall be enforced by an administrative body responsible for the public revenue .