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

The applicants , Mr PERSON , ORG , Mr PERSON , ORG and PERSON Marangunić are NORP nationals who were born in DATE ( the first applicant ) , DATE ( the second applicant ) , DATE ( the third applicant ) and DATE ( the fourth and the fifth applicant ) . The fifth applicant lives in GPE ( GPE ) whereas the other applicants live in GPE . They were all represented before the Court by Ms ORG , an advocate practising in GPE .

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

NORP The present case concerns the ownership of CARDINAL plots of land ( “ the land ” ) with a total area of QUANTITY , which were joined into a single ( cadastral ) plot ( no . CARDINAL ) on DATE . The plot(s ) , together with CARDINAL other plots of land , form ORG in ORG . ORG currently consists of CARDINAL tennis courts with red clay surface , CARDINAL tennis courts with hard surface , a central stadium , CARDINAL small multi - purpose court , a small gym and an administration building . Of those facilities the central stadium , the multi - purpose court and the access road are located on the plot(s ) in question .

In DATE the ORG ancestor PERSON bought and thereby became the owner of the land at issue . On DATE he leased it to a sports association , ORG ( later on T.D.S. and GPE , hereinafter “ the tennis club ” ) , which intended to build tennis courts on them .

It would appear that the land has remained in the possession of the tennis club ever since . Even though some tennis courts were built before the Second World War , it seems that the tennis club carried out significant ( re)construction works in the period DATE , which resulted in the sports complex consisting of CARDINAL tennis courts and the central stadium .

By the entry into force of ORG and LAW ( hereinafter “ LAW of DATE ” ) on CARDINAL DATE the land was nationalised as undeveloped construction land ( neizgrađeno građevinsko zemljište ) and thereby passed into social ownership ( društveno vlasništvo ) . Under sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL of that Act undeveloped construction land remained in the possession of the former owner until the former owner , on the basis of a decision by the relevant municipal authority , surrendered possession of the land to the local authorities or to another person , for construction of a building or other facility or for other works . While in possession of the nationalised land the former owner had the right to use the nationalised land free of charge or to allow another person to use it with or without a charge , according to the rules governing lease of agricultural land ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the CARDINAL plots of land were recorded in the land register as being in social ownership ; the former owners ( the applicants’ relatives ) had the right to use them until the relevant authority issued a decision transferring possession of the plots to the local authorities or to another person .

On DATE the CARDINAL plots were joined into a single cadastral plot .

NORP In preparation for the Mediterranean Games held in PERSON DATE further ( re)construction works were carried out to ORG . It would appear that CARDINAL more tennis courts , a stadium and a gym were built . The construction was completed in DATE .

On DATE the GPE and the tennis club concluded a “ self - management agreement ” ( “ ORG ” ) under which GPE transferred to the tennis club the right to manage , use and maintain the tennis courts GPE had built for the Mediterranean Games . GPE also agreed that the tennis club could record the right to use those tennis courts in the land register . The agreement did not specify the cadastral plots on which those tennis courts were located ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE entered into force . It provided that all sports facilities and other socially owned immovable property which sports organisations and associations had the right to use was to pass into the ownership of the local authorities in whose territory such property was located . However , in order to become owners the local authorities had to issue a decision taking over such property within DATE of the entry into force of the Amendments ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , published in the local official gazette and based on LAW to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , GPE took over and thus became the owner of all sports facilities and other socially owned immovable property on its territory referred to in those LAW . The decision listed “ Firule tennis courts ” among the sports facilities taken over by the township .

On DATE LAW entered into force . Pursuant to its section CARDINAL all holders of the right to use undeveloped construction land in social ownership became by the operation of law the owners of the land they had the right to use ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a decision of DATE the GPE specified the cadastral plots to which its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) referred . The plot in question ( no . CARDINAL ) was listed therein .

Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG relatives brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking compensation from the tennis club for unauthorised use of the land at issue .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the tennis club to pay the ORG relatives MONEY ( YUD ) , with interest , for using the land without any legal basis in the period DATE and DATE .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed an appeal by the tennis club and upheld the first - instance judgment . It endorsed the finding of the first - instance court that the tennis club had had no legal basis to use the land in question .

By a judgment of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal by the tennis club by endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts . In particular , that court held as follows :

“ The land at issue was nationalised on the basis of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of [ LAW of DATE ] . However , the right to use [ that land ] remained until DATE , recorded [ in the land register ] in the name of the plaintiffs as [ its ] former owners . In DATE the defendant commenced construction works on that land and has been using it for its own purposes ever since .

Even though the defendant applied on several occasions to [ the relevant authority within ] the former GPE to order dispossession of the plaintiffs in its favour , those requests were never met . ..

The plaintiffs throughout this period , namely from the commencement of the construction of the tennis courts until the action was brought in this case , demanded compensation for the land at issue , either by awarding them other immovable property or by paying them financial compensation . However , they did not obtain it , either from the defendant or in the regular proceedings for determining the level of compensation ...

Given that the land in dispute was not taken out of the possession of the plaintiffs , either on the basis of a decision by the GPE or on any other basis , nor was it given to the defendant on the basis of a decision by the relevant authority ... the defendant does not have any [ legal ] basis to use the land at issue . Even if the defendant had received building permit ... for construction of a tennis court during the time the land was privately owned by the plaintiffs or afterwards , namely after the nationalisation of the land , the possession of building permit itself is not a [ legal ] basis for losing or acquiring the right of ownership or , after nationalisation , the right to use the land .

By unlawfully retaining the plaintiffs’ land in its possession , the plaintiffs being the holders of the right to use that land , and by not paying them any compensation throughout the entire period the land was in its possession , the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiffs compensation at their request corresponding at least to the level of rent they would have received if they had been leasing that land to third parties . ”

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicants brought a civil action in ORG , seeking compensation from the tennis club for the use of the land in DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG ruled for the applicants , and ordered the tennis club to pay the applicants a total of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation for the use of the land in the period DATE and DATE , together with the accrued statutory default interest . In particular , it held as follows :

“ ... section CARDINAL of LAW as amended by the DATE Amendments provided that only those sports facilities which sports organisations and associations or other legal entities had the right to use passed into the ownership of townships and municipalities in whose territory they were located .

The defendant does not have the right to use the sports facilities built on the plot of land in dispute , because the right to use the land was , on the basis of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of [ LAW of DATE ] , recorded [ in the land register ] in the name of the GPE ancestors , which situation remained unaltered until the entry into force of LAW whereby the right to use was converted into the right of ownership of those recorded as users , that is , of the plaintiffs ...

The defendant did not acquire even an unrecorded right of use , because [ the defendant ] did not provide the court with relevant evidence [ to that effect ] . The defendant has been continuously in dispute with the plaintiffs and their ancestors over the immovable property in question since DATE ... GPE could not transfer to the defendant the right to administer and use land which it did not have . The immovable property at issue was never taken out of the possession of the plaintiffs in accordance with the law [ and ] in the relevant proceedings ; there is no decision by the relevant authority to that effect ; this last is not disputed between the parties . The plaintiffs and their ancestors were recorded as users and now ( co- ) owners of the land in question . ”

Following an appeal by the defendant , by a judgment of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) reversed the first - instance judgment and dismissed the applicants’ action . It held that the right to use the land in question had been transferred to the tennis club by ORG of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , and that by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , based on the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the local authorities had become the owners of that land . This meant that since DATE the applicants had not had the right to use the land or to claim any compensation from the tennis club . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :

“ In DATE the defendant had commenced the construction of tennis courts on the land in dispute , which was then nationalised on the basis of [ LAW of DATE ] . GPE , which had built the tennis courts , took possession of them and long after the nationalisation [ had taken place ] transferred to the defendant ( the tennis club ) , the right to administer , use and maintain the tennis courts by the self - management agreement of [ DATE , in accordance with the law .

By the entry into force of the [ DATE ] LAW to LAW the social ownership of sports facilities was transformed by the operation of law , before the entry into force of LAW . On the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW [ as amended by LAW ] , the sports facilities in social ownership , in the present case the tennis courts built on the land in dispute , passed into the ownership of GPE , which transferred that immovable property to the defendant , who has thus been using them , in this appellate court ’s view , on the basis of a valid legal title .

Contrary to the view of the first - instance court , this appellate court considers in the light of the foregoing that in the period DATE the defendant was not unlawfully using the cadastral plot no . CARDINAL on which the tennis courts were built .

Therefore , there is no legal basis for the plaintiffs’ compensation claim for the unauthorised use of the disputed land during the above DATE period . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) by the applicants . It endorsed the reasons given by the second - instance court . It added , in reply to the applicants’ main argument in their appeal :

“ The plaintiffs’ argument that section CARDINAL of LAW [ as amended by LAW ] is not applicable in the present case because [ the case ] does not concern sports facilities in social ownership which sports organisations had the right to use , is unfounded . In particular , the disputed immovable property had passed into social ownership on the basis of [ LAW of DATE ] ; the GPE ... had entered into possession of that property and commenced the construction of tennis courts and by ORG of [ DATE transferred to the defendant the right to manage , use and maintain the tennis courts . Therefore , the present case concerns immovable property in social ownership the defendant had the right to use and which , on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW [ as amended by DATE Amendments ] , passed into the ownership of GPE . ”

On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against ORG judgment . Relying on Articles CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they alleged violations of their constitutional rights to equality before the law , equality before the courts , fair hearing and the right of ownership .

It would appear that those proceedings are still pending before ORG .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicants brought a civil action in ORG against the tennis club , seeking repossession of the land in question . They argued that the tennis club was in possession of the tennis courts situated on that land without any legal basis .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the tennis club to surrender possession of the land to the applicants . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :

“ The defendant has been using the immovable property at issue by building a tennis court on it , which thus serves the needs of the defendant as a tennis club . As can be seen from the [ first proceedings for compensation ] the disputed immovable property has never been taken out of the plaintiffs’ possession even though the defendant on several occasions unsuccessfully sought possession from [ the relevant authority within ] the former GPE . It is therefore indisputable that until DATE the immovable property in question has not been taken out of the plaintiffs’ possession , which means that the defendant has been holding it unlawfully without a valid legal title . The plaintiffs therefore have the right to seek that the defendant vacate the property and surrender it to them .

Section CARDINAL of the [ LAW of DATE ] provided that nationalised construction land was to remain in the possession of its former owners until they surrendered possession of the land to [ the local authorities ] or to another person , for construction of a building or other facility or for other works , or to allow another person to use it for compensation , on the basis of a decision by the [ relevant municipal authority ] . Section CARDINAL of that Act provided that the former owner of the nationalised undeveloped construction land had the right to use that land ... as long as it remained in his or her possession , free of charge

Given that the relevant authority has not so far issued a decision on dispossession allowing the disputed immovable property to be taken from the possession of the plaintiffs , [ they ] still have the right to use it permanently , and the defendant has been unlawfully disturbing them in the exercise of that right , and has not been paying compensation for the entire period during which it has been using the immovable property at issue .

In the light of the foregoing , and given that the land in dispute was not the subject of a decision by the Split Municipality or of any other relevant authority , and has not been taken out of the possession of the plaintiffs and ... given to the defendant for use , this court finds that the defendant does not have any [ legal ] basis to use the land at issue and thus has to surrender it to the plaintiffs ... to whom that right lawfully belongs . [ The ] plaintiffs’ claim is therefore well - founded . ”

Following an appeal by the defendant , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed the first – instance judgment and dismissed the applicants’ action . In so doing it held as follows :

“ It is undisputed that the plaintiffs succeeded in [ the first set of civil proceedings for compensation ] .

What is disputed , however , is whether the plaintiffs can successfully seek repossession and return of the nationalised land relying on the absence of a decision by the relevant authority whereby the defendant would be allowed to take possession of the immovable property in question .

In the view of this court [ this ] dispute is to be resolved by applying the provisions of LAW . LAW regulated transformation [ of ownership ] ... of sports facilities ...

By the entry into force of the DATE LAW sports facilities ex lege passed from social ownership ... into the ownership of those townships and municipalities on whose territory they were located .

Section CARDINALa of LAW provided that those entitled [ town councils or municipal councils ] had to pass an act taking over sports facilities and other immovable property within DATE of the day of the entry into force of the DATE LAW ...

In ORG of the Split Municipality no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL March DATE ORG was published , transferring the right to administer , and regulating the [ legal ] relationships concerning the use and maintenance , of newly built tennis courts in ORG , whereby the GPE as the developer ... transferred to the [ tennis club ] the right to use and maintain the tennis courts ...

On DATE GPE ( on the basis of section CARDINALa of LAW ) passed the Decision on takeover of sports facilities and other immovable property in social ownership into the ownership of GPE , whereby ... inter alia , the Firule tennis courts passed into the ownership of GPE ...

In the present case the sequence of events shows that the tennis courts passed into the ownership of GPE , and thus the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue the defendant by their rei vindicatio action acting as the owners .

For these reasons ... the contested judgment had to be reversed and the plaintiffs’ action dismissed in its entirety . ”

On DATE the applicants , alleging violations of their constitutional right to equality before the law and the right of ownership , lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against ORG judgment . They relied on LAW paragraph CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint . It held :

“ The legal views expressed in the contested judgment are based on a constitutionally acceptable interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law . ORG finds that the ORG gave reasons for its views expressed in the contested judgment , which indisputably are not the result of an arbitrary interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law .

The immovable property in question , being socially owned , had been passed on the basis of LAW of LAW [ as amended by DATE Amendments ] into the ownership of GPE , which transferred them to the defendant , who has thus been using them on the basis of a valid legal title . ORG therefore finds that the second - instance court correctly applied the substantive law when holding that the complainants were not entitled to sue the defendant acting as the owners .

As regards the ORG argument that the relevant provisions of LAW ( in particular section CARDINAL ) should have been applied in the present case , ORG notes that this provision is not relevant in the present instance . ORG finds that in the instant case the [ statutory ] requirement for returning the immovable property in question , which in kind constitutes a sports facility ( the Firule tennis courts ) , to the complainants was not satisfied because [ that property ] had been transferred into social ownership when [ LAW of DATE ] was applied . [ That is so because ] the transformation of social ownership of sports facilities was regulated by LAW , which entered into force before LAW .

Since the second - instance court by reversing the first - instance judgment correctly applied the relevant substantive law and dismissed the complainant ’s action , the Constitutional Court finds that the ORG constitutional right guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW was not breached ...

ORG protects the right of ownership at the constitutional level in a manner that prevents restriction or taking of that right by the ORG authorities , unless a restriction or taking is provided for by law ... interferences with ownership by other legal subjects ( natural or legal persons ) are property disputes of a private - law nature . The ORG examines also such decisions of judicial and other authorities if it finds that the contested decision , having regard to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the LAW , is based on an erroneous or unacceptable legal view .

Given the subject matter of the civil proceedings that preceded these proceedings before [ it ] , the Constitutional Court finds that the ORG right [ of ownership ] guaranteed by LAW were not breached . ”

The Constitutional Court ’s decision was served on the ORG representative on DATE .

On DATE the GPE , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , lodged an application with ORG of ORG seeking to be recorded in the land register as the owner of the plot of land claimed by the applicants .

On DATE and DATE the applicants , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , lodged an application with the same judicial authority , seeking to be recorded in the land register as the owners of the same plot of land .

On DATE ORG of ORG allowed the application by the applicants and recorded them in the land register as the owners of the plot of land in question .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG dismissed GPE application of CARDINAL DATE for recordation as owner . ORG appealed and the appellate proceedings are currently pending before ORG .

On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the tennis club and the GPE seeking compensation for the unlawful use of the land in question from DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the GPE brought a counterclaim against the applicants , seeking to be declared the owner of the land in dispute . Shortly afterwards ORG decided to split the proceedings into CARDINAL , CARDINAL for compensation and the other for declaration of ownership .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ action for compensation .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants and upheld the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG against the second - instance judgment . The proceedings are currently pending before that court .

NORP The proceedings between the applicants and GPE for declaration of ownership are currently still pending before ORG as the first - instance court .

The relevant Articles of the LAW of GPE ( ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL read as follows :

“ Everyone in GPE shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other beliefs , national or social origin , property , birth , education , social status or other characteristics .

All shall be equal before the law . ”

“ All citizens of GPE and foreigners shall be equal before the courts and other ORG or public authorities . ”

“ In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

“ CARDINAL . The right of ownership shall be guaranteed .

Ownership implies duties . Owners and users of property shall contribute to the general welfare . ”

The relevant provisions of ORG and LAW ( Zakon o nacionalizaciji najamnih zgrada i građevinskog zemljišta , ORG of ORG of Yugoslavia no . DATE LAW of DATE ” ) , which entered into force on DATE , provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Buildings , parts of buildings and construction land nationalised by this LAW shall pass into social ownership on DATE of its entry into force .

( CARDINAL ) A decision of the relevant authority rendered in the proceedings prescribed by this LAW and [ relevant ] subordinate legislation ... shall determine which objects are nationalised by this LAW . ”

“ All developed or undeveloped construction land located in ... towns ... shall be considered construction land and shall be nationalised [ pursuant to this LAW ] . ”

“ Nationalised undeveloped construction land shall remain in the possession of its former owners until they surrender possession of the land to [ the local authorities ] or to another person for construction of a building or other facility or for other works , on the basis of a decision by the [ relevant municipal authority ] ,

Possession of the land shall not be surrendered to [ the local authorities ] or to another user before the user needs it to perform construction or other works with a view to bringing the land into its designated use . ”

“ The former owner of nationalised undeveloped construction land shall have the right to use that land ... as long as it remains in his or her possession , free of charge , and shall also have the right to allow another person to use it with or without charge , according to the legislation governing the lease of agricultural land . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o športu , ORG nos . CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , which was in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , as amended by LAW ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON o športu , ORG no . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :

“ Sports facilities and other immovable property in social ownership which sports organisations and associations or other legal entities established to manage sports facilities ( companies , institutions , work organisations ) have the right to use shall pass into the ownership of townships and municipalities in whose territory they are located . ”

“ An act of taking over the sports facilities and other immovable property referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of this Act shall be passed by the town or municipal council within DATE of the entry into force of this Act . ”

The relevant provisions of the Ownership and Other Rights In Rem Act ( Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The right to use undeveloped construction land in social ownership which has not been extinguished before the enactment of this LAW shall by its entry into force be converted into the right of ownership of the holder of that right or of his or her legal successor ...


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

On DATE a group of CARDINAL people living in LOC of Dagestan , a mountainous region close to the border with GPE , posted a written notice informing the district authorities that on DATE they would hold a public demonstration in the village of GPE . The ORG names were not mentioned in the list of organisers of the demonstration . The principal aims of the demonstration were to criticise the work of the head of the local administration , PERSON , to denounce corruption and the misuse of public funds by the local administration , and to draw attention to the inactivity of the law - enforcement agencies vis - à - vis abuses committed by PERSON and his colleagues . The demonstration was supposed to be held in a recreational park in the village of GPE from TIME ; the estimated number of participants was CARDINAL . The organisers asked the police to dispatch officers for the protection of those participating in the demonstration . Although the applicants’ names were not in the notice , they claimed that they had played an active part in the organisation of the meeting in their respective communities .

The notice ( уведомление ) was sent to the district administration with copies to the NORP district prosecutor and the head of the district police department . The applicants produced a copy of a payment slip from a post office in GPE indicating that the notice had been posted by registered mail on DATE . It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that the notice was received by the district administration on DATE .

On DATE the head of the district administration , Mr A. – the same person who was the principle target of the criticism by the demonstrators – informed the organisers that the district administration was opposed to the demonstration . In his letter of CARDINAL DATE Mr A. said that , first , the notice had been lodged ( подано ) outside the time - limit fixed in LAW . Secondly , the park in GPE was not supposed to admit CARDINAL people , so it was impossible to hold a demonstration there . Thirdly , the purpose of the demonstration was to condemn the embezzlement of public funds and the deliberate destruction of financial records by the district administration . However , according to PERSON , the competent law - enforcement authorities , in particular the prosecutor ’s office , and financial authorities such as ORG of ORG , had already inquired into those allegations and concluded that there had been no case to answer . The letter also contained a warning addressed to the organisers that if they proceeded with the demonstration as planned , they would be held liable in accordance with the law .

At TIME on DATE , a group of men armed with iron rods and sticks attacked another group of individuals near the village of Khiv . CARDINAL persons were injured . Having received information about the clash , the PERSON police dispatched a group of officers to the scene . The police set up an improvised roadblock near the “ FAC ” ( GPE ) to check the passing cars and prevent further clashes . TIME a group of CARDINAL people armed with wooden sticks , iron rods and similar objects arrived at the roadblock in several cars without licence plates . The police stopped those cars . According to the authorities , the second applicant then climbed onto the roof of his car and started to incite his fellow villagers to resist the police and to run them over . His followers started to abuse the police verbally , pushed them out of their way and tried to overturn a police vehicle and a truck which the police had used to block the road . CARDINAL of the police officers was injured , and his uniform was ripped . As a result , the police gave up and let the cars pass .

The second applicant denied having participated in the scuffle . He maintained that on DATE he had been taking part in a gathering in LOC . As to the episode near the police roadblock , he claimed that he had argued with the police officers , asking them to let him and his car through , and the windscreen of his car had been broken by them . However , he had not committed any unlawful acts .

On an unspecified date the prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal investigation into the events of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the second applicant was arrested with reference to case no . DATE , which concerned the riot on DATE in the village of Khiv . On DATE ORG granted the police ’s request to detain the second applicant on remand . The second applicant was suspected of having committed a crime under LAW ( “ GPE riots ” ) , and LAW ( “ Use of violence against a public official ” ) of LAW of GPE . The court ruled that the second applicant should be detained because otherwise he might obstruct the establishment of the truth , destroy evidence or abscond . The second applicant appealed , claiming that the court ’s decision was unsubstantiated , but on DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the appeal in a summary fashion .

On DATE the ORG of PERSON ordered the second applicant ’s release , indicating that he had a permanent place of residence , CARDINAL children to take care of and an elderly father who was ill , and that the charges against him were not serious . The second applicant was released .

Subsequently , the criminal case against the second applicant was closed by the trial court for “ active repentance ” .

NORP Despite the decision of the local administration of DATE whereby the demonstration of DATE had not been allowed , the organisers decided to hold it as planned . The first and the third applicants took part in that “ unauthorised ” demonstration ; the second applicant was not amongst the protesters since at that time he had been detained on remand in connection with the episode of on DATE in the village of PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

At TIME on DATE , a group of CARDINAL people gathered on the outskirts of GPE . Other demonstrators were unable to reach the assembly point because the roads had been blocked by the police .

NORP The organisers tried to meet representatives of the village administration in order to discuss the situation , but to no avail . When the demonstrators started moving towards the centre of the village , the police blocked their way . At the same time another group of demonstrators from the neighbouring village of GPE were stopped by the police on the way to GPE ; they were ordered to return to GPE and hold their demonstration there separately , if they so wished .

In TIME the demonstrators from GPE started moving towards GPE . As the police had blocked the road , the demonstrators had to leave their cars and walk . Because of the bad weather and the long distance to walk , some of them decided to give up . As a result , when the demonstration arrived at GPE , there were CARDINAL participants .

The meeting was peaceful ; however , at TIME the demonstrators were encircled by police officers from ORG ( the “ OMON ” ) . The police opened fire with automatic rifles above the demonstrators’ heads . They also used tear gas , smoke bombs and stun grenades to disperse the demonstration . The demonstrators started to run in the direction of the village ; the police officers followed them . The police beat the demonstrators with rubber truncheons and rifle butts . As a result , CARDINAL person was shot dead , CARDINAL people were severely injured and CARDINAL people were beaten up or were injured by the shells of the tear - gas bombs which had exploded in the midst of the crowd . CARDINAL people were arrested , and the organisers of the meeting were charged in connection with their participation in the organisation of an unauthorised demonstration . From the first and the third applicants’ submissions it appears that they were present at the scene of the confrontation in GPE up to a certain moment but left when the clash started at QUANTITY None of them was hurt during the clash .

As to the gunshot injury received by a police officer , CARDINAL of the participants in the demonstration , referring to the words of another witness , Mr MONEY , claimed that the wound had been self - inflicted : the officer concerned had shot himself in the leg by accident , because his gun had not been locked .

On DATE ORG of ORG issued LAW CARDINAL “ On measures to stabilise the situation in LOC of Dagestan ” . The order described the unauthorised demonstration of DATE , which supposedly would involve CARDINAL people “ with an aggressive predisposition ” . The order mentioned the risks of blocking the roads and disturbing the normal work of ORG institutions . A “ mixed squad ” was formed comprising of CARDINAL police officers from ORG ( ORG ) and CARDINAL officers from CARDINAL local police stations . Colonel PERSON . was appointed as commander of the “ mixed squad ” . The order provided for undercover observation of the leaders of the demonstrators , video - recording of the events , strengthening of identity checks at the roadblocks and other security measures .

NORP The squad moved to GPE and took position at several roadblocks controlling roads leading to the village and near certain buildings occupied by ORG bodies . The aim of the operation was to secure public order , guarantee the constitutional rights and freedoms of the population and prevent clashes between the supporters of PERSON and his opponents .

In their observations , the Government claimed that on DATE of the demonstration someone had taken alcohol , foodstuff and illegal drugs to GPE . It had all been distributed amongst the residents of the village . In addition , there was information about individuals from other villages who had arrived in ORG with the aim of inciting the local population to participate in the unlawful demonstration and to insubordination to the lawenforcement authorities .

At TIME on DATE , CARDINAL groups of people gathered near the LOC of the village administration . CARDINAL group of CARDINAL people were supporters of PERSON , the head of the district administration . The CARDINAL other groups DATE which counted CARDINAL people in aggregate – were the opponents of PERSON documents contained in the case file also refer to another group of CARDINAL people , who arrived in GPE to take part in the demonstration ; it is unclear whether that group was able to join the gathering in the centre or was stopped by the police on the outskirts of the village .

NORP In view of the risk of clashes between the opposing groups , representatives of the protesters were invited to take part in negotiations in the local prosecutor ’s office . The negotiations involved Colonel PERSON . , the Deputy Minister of ORG of ORG , the prosecutor , Ms ORG . , and the head of the local police , PERSON . The authorities proposed to the organisers that they could hold the demonstration in a municipal garage .

NORP However , that offer was declined . The demonstrators started to move from GPE to GPE , where they arrived at CARDINAL or TIME In the meantime , however , someone had blocked the road with objects including paving stones , timber beams and water pipes . This was a federallevel road connecting several villages and its blockage caused a considerable traffic jam .

The authorities warned the organisers that if the road remained blocked , the organisers would be held liable , and that the law - enforcement authorities present on the spot would use force and “ special equipment ” .

The organisers refused to follow the instructions and told other demonstrators to disobey the police orders . When the police , following the orders of Deputy Minister Colonel PERSON . , started to remove the barricade from the road , unidentified men in the crowd started to throw stones at them . In addition , several shots were fired from a garden situated uphill on the left side of the road . Some of the protesters were armed with cold weapons such as iron rods , which they used as bats while attacking the police , whereas others tried to grab the service guns from the police officers .

As a result , the police had to use firearms and special equipment . In particular , they used CARDINAL stun grenades , CARDINAL tear - gas grenades , thirtysix rubber bullets , and fired QUANTITY shots from automatic rifles above the heads of the crowd . CARDINAL of the most active protesters were arrested and taken to the NORP police station .

In addition , unidentified police officers used pump - action shotguns loaded with QUANTITY grenades filled with tear gas . Those shots were fired in the direction of the crowd .

Following the clash between the police and the demonstrators , several police officers were injured . CARDINAL had bruises on their arms and legs , scratches and concussion ; one had a ruptured spleen ; and CARDINAL , Mr Il . , had a gunshot wound in the form of a perforated bullet hole in the right thigh .

QUANTITY civilians were seriously injured and one died . PERSON . had a blunt gunshot wound to the right side of the thorax with fractured ribs ; Mr PERSON . had a gunshot wound to the left side of the thorax with broken shoulder bones ; Mr PERSON . was wounded by a shell fragment in the right shin and thigh ; Mr Gnd . had a gunshot wound to the right forearm with a fractured bone ; and PERSON . received a mortal wound by a gas grenade to the thorax and died on the way to hospital .

In support of their account , the Government produced some documents apparently obtained in the course of the investigation ( case no . DATE ) . It is unclear , however , whether all those documents related to case No . DATE and whether they constituted the entirety of the materials collected within that case . The content of those documents , insofar as relevant , is described below .

The Government produced medical certificates describing the injuries of several police officers , but not Mr Il . They also produced several medical certificates describing the injuries sustained by the protesters , all of whom had bruises and scratches . According to the certificates , the protesters claimed that the police had kicked , beaten and battered them with rubber truncheons and gun butts . Some of the protesters had been injured by the rubber bullets used by the police . Others claimed that they had been beaten up after having been arrested and taken to the police station .

In his testimony PERSON . , the head of the NORP police , gave an account of the events which was generally consonant with that of the Government . He said that he had been warned about the demonstration in a telegram sent by the organisers . On DATE he had met CARDINAL of them and discussed the event . He further explained that at some time after TIME on DATE , his men had stopped a large group of protesters who had been trying to enter GPE . PERSON . had spoken with the leaders of the protesters and explained to them that “ the demonstration had not been authorised , and that the actions [ of the demonstrators ] were unlawful ” . Subsequently , he had been involved in the negotiations with the demonstrators . The deputy head of the district administration had proposed to the protesters that they hold the demonstration in a municipal garage , explaining that if they stayed in the square near the district administration premises , they risked blocking the main road . The leaders of the protesters visited the garage , but were not satisfied with that offer . They informed the authorities that they would send the protesters to GPE and hold their demonstration there , in the village community centre . When the negotiations were over , a small group of protesters started to move towards the village centre , whereas others marched to GPE , accompanied by the police . At TIME Mr Akb . was informed that the federal road had been blocked by CARDINAL large heaps of stones . He arrived at the scene and started to negotiate with the leaders of the protesters . He tried to persuade them to unblock the road , but they refused and insisted on meeting the leadership of GPE . New people arrived at the scene , armed with stones and sticks . Since the negotiations had failed , PERSON . ordered the police to start clearing the road . The men who had gathered on the sides of the road started to throw stones at the police officers , several of whom were hit , so Mr ORG . authorised the use of shields and rubber truncheons . Once the first heap of stones had been removed and the traffic had started to move , the police discovered that QUANTITY further down the road it had again been obstructed with pipes . Throughout that time the police officers had stones thrown at them . PERSON . authorised them to use firearms but only above the heads of the protesters . By TIME the road had been unblocked .

Mr Yakh . , CARDINAL of the protesters , testified that when they had arrived in GPE , the road had not yet been blocked . People had started to block the road spontaneously with stones in order to draw the authorities’ attention to their claims . The leaders of the demonstration , who spoke before the crowd , called everybody to order and asked them not to break the law . Then a police colonel appeared . He asked the leaders of the protesters to unblock the road , but they refused . The police then attacked the protesters from CARDINAL sides and started to shoot and throw gas grenades into the crowd . People started to run in the direction of GPE . PERSON . testified that he had not seen protesters throwing stones at the police : by contrast , the police had thrown stones at the crowd in order to unblock the road .

Witness Mr Ag . , a district administration official , testified that all the protesters , including women and elderly people , had been drunk , because earlier a mini - lorry had brought a cargo of vodka which had been distributed to the protesters . Mr Ag . joined the crowd and went with the protesters to GPE , where he listened to the speeches of the leaders of the demonstration before a crowd of CARDINAL people . After the failure of the negotiations between the protesters and the authorities , the leaders started to incite the protesters to throw stones ; he also heard the sound of shots coming from the side where the protesters had gathered . A police officer was wounded . The police started to move towards the protesters and fired CARDINAL warning shots above their heads . When the police started to remove the stones from the road and arrest the protesters , Mr Ag . left . On the way back he overheard CARDINAL women complaining that the organisers had not paid them and that they had been used as a human shield against the police .

According to an undated report by the head of ORG , Major PERSON . , the police had started using gas grenades only when a large group of CARDINAL men armed with iron rods , wooden sticks and knives had attacked them . Major PERSON . also specified that when his officers were moving from the first barricade to the second , someone had started to shoot at them from under the nearby trees with an automatic gun and a hunter ’s gun .

Witness PERSON . testified that on DATE he had been going on his business but had been stopped by the crowd . He had heard the first applicant calling the protesters not to block the road but to gather in the community centre of GPE . However , some of the demonstrators disobeyed ; CARDINAL lorries arrived and dumped stones on the road . Some of the protesters were throwing stones at the police .

One of the witnesses , PERSON . , was the driver of the lorry that had brought stones for the first barricade . He explained that he had loaded the stones near the river in order to build a shed in his garden . Near the entry to GPE he was stopped by a group of youngsters who ordered him , under the threat of violence , to dump the stones directly on the road .

The written testimonies of several other eyewitnesses were inconclusive . Some of them testified that a group of adolescents had been throwing stones at the police ; others said that the police had used firearms by shooting in the air , whereas the demonstrators had no firearms . Some witnesses heard shots from the side of the protesters .

On DATE the first applicant was arrested for participating in the organisation of an unauthorised demonstration on DATE ( criminal case no . DATE ) . He was suspected of having committed a crime under LAW ( “ Hooliganism ” ) , and LAW of violence against a public official ” ) of LAW of GPE ( for all further references to LAW see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

NORP In particular , the police suspected that the first applicant had incited the demonstrators to block the road and to “ disobey the lawful orders of the police with the use of firearms ” . The police applied to ORG for a detention order against the first applicant .

According to the ORG , the decision of the Prosecutor of GPE ( hereinafter “ the RPO ” , ORG ) to seek the first applicant ’s detention was based on the witness statements of PERSON . , Mr Agsh . , Mr Shk . and an anonymous witness . Those witnesses identified the first applicant as CARDINAL of the leaders of the demonstration who had incited the crowd to attack the police .

On DATE the ORG of GPE placed the first applicant in pre - trial detention . In its ruling the court noted that he was suspected of having committed a serious crime and that he might continue his criminal activity , abscond or obstruct the course of justice . The court also referred to his “ personality ” .

The first applicant ’s lawyer appealed . He indicated that the first applicant worked as head of a municipal social - security office , had a permanent place of residence and CARDINAL children , and had good references from his colleagues and neighbours . The lawyer also stated that the first applicant had not been contacted by the investigators before his arrest . The lawyer noted that a suspect could be held in pre - trial detention before being formally charged only in exceptional circumstances . The court ’s ruling did not refer to any specific facts showing that the first applicant indeed intended to continue his criminal activities , abscond or obstruct the course of justice . Furthermore , the lawyer pointed to various irregularities in the application by the police and in the court ’s ruling imposing the detention order .

On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the appeal in a summary fashion . ORG reasoning was identical to that of the lower court .

On DATE the first applicant was charged under LAW CARDINAL and LAW . In the indictment the first applicant was referred to as “ the organiser of the demonstration ” . The indictment also mentioned that , as one of the organisers of the demonstration , the first applicant had ordered the protesters to block the road , throw stones in the direction of the police and use firearms .

It appears that in the meantime the first applicant had a confrontation with the witnesses who had earlier identified him as CARDINAL of the instigators of the riot . According to the Government , they had all denied their previous allegations concerning his role in the riot .

DATE . On DATE the ORG of PERSON refused to extend the first applicant ’s pre - trial detention . The court ruled that the police had not produced any evidence that he might abscond or obstruct the course of justice , and that another preventive measure could not be applied . The court also stated that the need to question other demonstrators who had used violence against the police was not a good reason for extending his detention . The court lastly stated that the first applicant had no previous convictions , was married , was in employment , had good references , had been awarded State decorations and had a permanent place of residence . The first applicant was released .

On DATE the criminal case against the first applicant was discontinued for lack of evidence . The investigator established that the road going to GPE had been blocked by the protesters ; when the police had tried to clear the road , the protesters had started to throw stones and sticks at them . Several police officers had been injured ; police officer PERSON . had been wounded by a bullet fired from a hunter ’s gun .

The investigator ’s decision to discontinue the case referred to the protocol of examining the site of the clash during which he had discovered the following objects : CARDINAL QUANTITY ( the type used in the police ’s automatic guns ) , CARDINAL QUANTITY cartridge ( standard army PERSON rifle ) , CARDINAL cardboard cartridges ( hunter ’s gun ) and CARDINAL cartridge from a teargas grenade .

The investigator further referred to the testimony of several demonstrators who had stated that when the police had approached the demonstrators , most of the people had remained calm . However , some time later , a group of young men whom the witnesses had identified as “ the people of Mr Kanberov ” , had arrived and started to throw stones and shout insults at the police .

Two police officers questioned by the investigator were granted anonymity . They testified that the leaders of the demonstration , including the first and third applicants , had ordered the protesters to disobey the police and throw stones at them . The testimony of the CARDINAL anonymous witnesses was confirmed by several other police officers who testified under their real names , including PERSON . However , during a face - to - face confrontation with the first applicant , officer Sch . retracted his statement .

Police officer Mr GPE . testified that the first applicant had left the scene of the confrontation TIME , namely before the start of the clash , because of an emergency in his family . That fact was confirmed by witness PERSON . Witness Mr Um . testified that the first applicant had tried to persuade the protesters to follow the orders of the police and had designated CARDINAL people to keep order during the demonstration .

The first and third applicants were also questioned . They denied their guilt and claimed that they had been collaborating with the police and had tried to call the protesters to order .

NORP The investigator lastly referred to a video recording of the demonstration which showed that the first and third applicants had asked the protesters not to react to provocations and to remain calm .

On DATE the first applicant was informed of his right to claim damages in connection with the criminal prosecution against him .

The third applicant was arrested on DATE . Whereas it is undisputed that the third applicant was present during the demonstration of DATE , his arrest was connected not to that demonstration but to his role in the events of DATE in the village of PERSON and was ordered within criminal case no . PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG of PERSON ordered the third applicant ’s pre - trial detention . The court reasoned that as he might be given a prison sentence , he might abscond . The court noted that although the arrest warrant had been issued by the police on DATE , the third applicant had not been arrested until DATE .

The third applicant appealed . He stated , in particular , that before DATE the police had not taken any steps to enforce the arrest warrant of DATE . He had been arrested on the LOC of ORG of ORG , where he had gone of his own motion .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the findings of the first - instance court in a summary fashion . On DATE the third applicant was charged under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW for participating in the events of DATE in the village of Khiv . The charges against him were similar to those against the second applicant .

On DATE the ORG of PERSON refused to extend the third applicant ’s pre - trial detention . The court ruled that the police had not produced any evidence that he might abscond or obstruct the course of justice . The court also indicated that the need to conduct further investigative steps was not a legitimate reason for extending his detention . The court concluded that it was possible to apply a milder preventive measure . The third applicant was released .

As follows from the ORG ’s submissions , the accusations against the third applicant were based on the testimony of CARDINAL witness . The prosecution authorities decided to drop the charges against him .

On DATE the ORG ordered a criminal investigation into the events in GPE and GPE ( case no . DATE ) . The facts were categorised under LAW ( e ) ( “ Murder ” ) and LAW possession of or trafficking in firearms ” ) of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE Colonel PERSON . , acting head of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG of ORG , drew up a report on the events of DATE . He explained that the tear - gas grenades had been used when the protesters attacked the police with iron rods and tried to grab the service guns .

On DATE an internal inquiry carried out by the federal ORG concluded that the police ’s actions on DATE had been appropriate . In particular , according to the final report of the inquiry , at TIME . had ordered his officers to unblock the road , but the officers were attacked by a group of men armed with iron rods , stones and knives . Some of those men tried to grab the ORG service guns . When the police entered GPE , they discovered a lorry loaded with alcohol , cigarettes and foodstuff . Lieutenant - Colonel Mr Og . testified that his men had been fired at from the nearby gardens located on the left side of the road . Officer PERSON . ( who had sustained a bullet wound to his thigh ) testified that a hooded man had shot at him with a hunter ’s gun . An appendix to the internal inquiry described restrictions on the use of gas grenades ; in particular , it was prohibited to “ shot gas grenades directly at humans ” .

On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant drafted and submitted to the investigator his account of the events of DATE ( a copy was submitted by the Government ) . He claimed that the demonstration had started peacefully , despite information that a group of PERSON supporters had occupied the park in GPE . During the negotiations with the authorities in TIME of DATE the authorities’ representatives warned the protesters that if they insisted on holding the demonstration in GPE , there would be bloodshed . In TIME , when the demonstrators refused to leave the road near GPE , the police started to shoot and beat them with rubber truncheons . The first applicant submitted to the prosecutor a video recording of the start of the clash , and requested the questioning of several participants of the events .

DATE . On DATE the ORG opened a criminal investigation under LAW ( b ) and ( c ) of the ORG ( “ Abuse of office ” ) concerning the killing of PERSON . ( case no . DATE ) .

On DATE cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE were joined .

According to the Government , within those CARDINAL cases the investigators questioned CARDINAL witnesses and conducted ballistic and medical forensic examinations . The relatives of the victims or the victims themselves were granted the status of victims in those proceedings .

NORP However , the prosecution was unable to establish the persons responsible for the facts at the heart of the investigation . As a result , on DATE the investigation was suspended . The investigator held that “ in breach of the instruction on the use of special equipment ... No . CARDINAL , officers of ORG ... fired CARDINAL QUANTITY gas grenades ... ” However , it was impossible to identify the police officers who had fired the fatal shot .

It appears that on an unidentified date the investigation was reopened and on DATE it was suspended again .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Pavlina Panova;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

NORP In DATE the CARDINAL applicants and GPE , the first applicant ’s husband and the second applicant ’s father , travelled to GPE , to take up a DATE paid traineeship in ORG institutions which the first applicant had been granted there .

On DATE the father went to GPE with the second applicant . He refused to return the child to GPE on DATE , despite the child ’s having a ticket for that date and contrary to what had been agreed with the mother .

As a result , the first applicant interrupted her training and returned to GPE on DATE where she joined ORG and their child .

The first applicant brought judicial proceedings seeking protection against GPE The proceedings were suspended on an unspecified date , following a joint request by the first applicant and GPE The proceedings were later resumed after the first applicant claimed that the abuse continued .

ORG issued , on DATE , a protection order in favour of the CARDINAL applicants , prohibiting GPE from approaching them for DATE . The court established that , during the period DATE and DATE , ORG had subjected the CARDINAL applicants to psychological abuse . In particular , he had repeatedly insulted the mother in front of the child , had called her a bad mother , had not allowed the CARDINAL of them to have contact unsupervised by him and , for that purpose , had locked the bathroom and bedroom doors in the apartment at TIME . The court also found that PERSON had made the first applicant sleep on the floor , had driven at a high speed with the child on the front seat of the car , had held the child over the balcony banister pressing the child ’s carotid ( neck ) artery and had threatened the first applicant that he would “ rip [ her ] open from top to bottom and serve the corresponding jail time ” .

As a result of the restraining order ORG did not have contact with the child DATE and DATE .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicants left the family home and the first applicant has exercised actual custody over the second applicant ever since . The first applicant was initially granted a scholarship to study for a master ’s degree in GPE during DATE . The father did not give his consent to the child ’s travel to GPE . As a result , the second applicant lived with his maternal grand - parents from DATE .

NORP In order to spend as much time as possible with her child , the first applicant traveled frequently between GPE and GPE . She submitted that DATE and DATE she spent CARDINAL her time in GPE with her child . This negatively affected her studies : because she was often absent from classes in order to visit her child , she needed longer overall time to complete her master ’s programme , namely DATE instead of DATE . She was awarded another scholarship for a doctorate degree in GPE , starting in DATE .

On DATE , the first applicant filed a claim for divorce .

On DATE the district court pronounced the divorce of the first applicant and her husband as being due to GPE ’s fault , and granted the exercise of parental rights to the first applicant . The father ’s contact rights were determined with a view to the child ’s possible residence in GPE and were as follows : DATE and DATE in DATE second applicant started school , and CARDINAL of every school holiday after that .

Following an appeal by ORG , the regional court upheld the lower court ’s findings . ORG dismissed his subsequent cassation appeal as inadmissible . The judgment declaring the divorce final became enforceable on DATE .

In parallel with the divorce proceedings , on DATE the first applicant brought proceedings before the district court under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She sought to obtain a court decision dispensing with the father ’s consent to the child ’s travel outside the country . More specifically , she requested permission freely to leave the country with her son for a period of DATE as of the date of entry into force of the court judgment .

Several court hearings were held . The applicant informed the court about her intended studies in GPE for DATE , the fact that she had been granted a scholarship , that she had the financial means to take care of her son and that he had adapted well to the social environment in GPE . She did not specifically invoke a provision under the Convention ; instead , she expressed her wish to live with and care for her child while she was pursuing her studies in GPE . However , it appears that she did not formally limit in writing her request for permission to travel with her child to GPE or to any other country .

NORP The district court granted the first applicant ’s request on DATE . It found in particular that there was no reason to suspect that she would permanently leave the country with the second applicant . It also held that the father ’s access rights had been determined in a preliminary court decision ( определение ) of CARDINAL DATE and , if the first applicant were to obstruct them , GPE could bring separate proceedings in that connection .

After an appeal by ORG the regional court upheld that judgment on DATE . The court observed that the second applicant ’s right to freedom of movement was protected under LAW on the Rights of the LAW , LAW and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE below ) . The right to freedom of movement could only be limited in exceptional situations , namely in order to protect national security , public order , public health and morals or the rights and freedoms of others . None of those exceptions had been established or even claimed in the applicants’ case . The court observed that the first applicant offered good material conditions to the child in GPE , that the child had adapted well during his stay there before DATE , that the first applicant was going to specialise in NORP law in ORG and that the second applicant enjoyed considerable care and attention from his mother . The court also held that ORG ’s arguments about his access rights were unrelated to the present proceedings ; those arguments had to do with the enforcement of a future court decision in which the exercise of the parental rights in respect of the second applicant were to be definitively determined . The court concluded that it was in the interest of the second applicant to have a passport issued and to travel with the first applicant abroad .

Upon a cassation appeal by ORG , ORG refused the first applicant ’s request in a final judgment of DATE . The court relied on its well established and binding case - law according to which permission for a child ’s unlimited travel abroad with CARDINAL parent only could not be granted because , as a matter of principle , that could never be in the best interest of the child . The reasons were more specifically that there was a risk that the requesting parent could take the child to countries which were in a state of war or in which there was a high risk of natural calamities , and thus endanger the child ’s well - being while depriving ORG possibility to ensure his or her protection . Such permission could be granted , when that was in the interest of the child , in respect of concrete destinations and for a limited period of time . Finally , the court rejected the first applicant ’s request that the court define of its own motion concrete boundaries within which travel could be permitted , stating that it was bound by the formulation presented in the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the first applicant brought a new request for permission of the second applicant ’s travel with his mother to GPE and the other ORG countries for DATE without the father ’s consent . This time she brought her claim under LAW , which provision was adopted in the meantime and which governs specifically the question of LOC travel abroad and the issuing of identity documents for that purpose ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She pointed out that she had consistently facilitated GPE ’s access to the child in accordance with his contact rights determined in the divorce proceedings . She submitted that , because she could not take the second applicant with her to GPE while she was pursuing her studies there , both her child and she were deprived of personal contact with each other . She claimed this negatively affected their family life as she was practically deprived of the possibility to raise her child while the exercise of parental rights had been granted to her . She submitted that her doctoral studies in GPE , which were to DATE as of DATE , would give her the flexibility necessary for her taking care of her child , given that she could do most of her work from home . Finally , she pointed out that the second applicant continuously asked to be with his mother at all times as he is very attached to her .

NORP In a decision of DATE , ORG allowed the second applicant ’s travel to GPE and within ORG , for DATE , accompanied by his mother . The decision was not appealed against and became enforceable on DATE .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant lived with her DATE daughter , PERSON , and with her mother , PERSON

Following a call from ORG , on CARDINAL DATE the police removed A. from her home and placed her in the care of ORG “ GPE ” . A medical report drawn up on DATE found that the applicant had severe alcohol intoxication .

C.I. later stated to the police that , as a salesman in a shop on a street near the applicant ’s house , he would regularly see the applicant and her mother drinking alcohol and failing to take care of A. , who often had an unkempt appearance and would wander around without adult surveillance , asking for food . He called the police on TIME CARDINAL DATE after A. had asked him to call for an ambulance because her mother and grandmother had been fighting .

On an unspecified date ORG reported to ORG the circumstances of their intervention on DATE :

“ On DATE around TIME [ a call ] was registered about domestic violence occurring at [ the applicant ’s address ] . At the scene [ the applicant and her mother ] , both visibly drunk , were found exhibiting aggressive behaviour and were unkempt in their appearance . Physical and psychological violence was exercised in the presence of the child .

A child was found in the yard ... she looked unkempt and said that she had not eaten anything the whole day .

From discussions with the neighbour who had called the police , it was established that the child had been without surveillance for DATE , in an unkempt state and sometimes asking for food . Subsequently the child was identified as A.

At the scene it was also established that the child lives in unsanitary conditions , without electricity . The child does not have the basic requirements for her physical and intellectual development , and is not enrolled in any pre - school institution . ... [ S]he does not have a healthy diet [ because she ] begs food from neighbours .

... [ The applicant ] was directed to undergo an examination in order to assess the level and the nature of her intoxication .

... On DATE the child inspector who was present at the scene called for an ambulance which took the child to [ hospital ] for medical investigation and appropriate medical assistance ....

ORG is currently investigating whether [ the applicant ] had committed an offence under LAW ) of LAW . ...

[ We request ] ... adoption of a decision on the placement of the child in a special institution and the lodging of an action in court seeking withdrawal of [ the applicant ’s ] parental authority ” .

On DATE a social worker and a psychologist from a non - governmental organisation visited the applicant ’s home and found that the house was in disorder and lacked running water , electricity and gas .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed by a GPE police officer . On DATE a police report concluded that the applicant was failing to duly fulfil her parental duties of educating and caring for her child because her abuse of alcohol , quarrelling or fighting with her mother in the child ’s presence , and at times using physical violence towards her mother . The report concluded that the applicant had committed an offence under LAW and took into account the applicant ’s personal and family circumstances as a mitigating factor . On DATE the ORG prosecutor confirmed the police ’s finding that the applicant had committed an offence under LAW and sentenced her to an administrative fine in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( equivalent to CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) .

Also on DATE , ORG examined A. ’s situation . When the applicant appeared before the committee she was allegedly intoxicated . The applicant disputed that allegation . Based on the findings of this meeting , on DATE ORG concluded that PERSON ’s return to her biological family would put her life and health in danger . The ORG decided to place her in the Municipal Children ’s Centre and to initiate proceedings to withdraw the applicant ’s parental authority .

A. stayed in hospital from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . She was diagnosed with “ residual encephalopathy with delayed motor skills , mild leg movement disorder , thyroid gland disease , decreased need for sleep ( “ hyposomnia ” ) , urinary insufficiency and disorder of the function of the pancreas . ” She was prescribed treatment .

On DATE was transferred to ORG . A psychological evaluation dated DATE described A. as displaying “ well - developed gross motor skills , corresponding to her age , at a slow tempo . Free , balanced and directional walking . Weak fine motor skills . ... Balanced and quiet behaviour , delayed development of cognitive processes and of communication abilities , with chances of recovery . Psycho - social deprivation . ”

On DATE ORG approved A. ’s placement with the family of C. , a professional parental social worker . On DATE C. took A. from ORG and noted that A. was physically healthy , clean and without any skin eruptions .

On DATE ORG instituted proceedings seeking the withdrawal of the applicant ’s parental authority . They relied on CARDINAL grounds for the withdrawal of authority under LAW : neglect of a child , a parent ’s immoral conduct , a parent ’s chronic alcoholism , and other reasons taking into account the interests of the child . They relied on the information provided by the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and the conclusions of the committee meeting of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In a note dated DATE ORG Centre informed ORG that on DATE had been transferred to the centre and that on DATE she had been registered as a child in difficult circumstances . The note also stated that the applicant had neither visited nor inquired about A. since her placement in the centre .

In the course of the proceedings , ORG submitted the applicant ’s character assessment drawn up by ORG on an unspecified date , which read :

“ ... [ The applicant ’s ] family has been classified as a family unfit to educate ( “ needucogenă ” ) since DATE . It was found that [ the applicant ] drank alcohol at home with her mother , followed by violent behaviour in the child ’s presence . Before the child ’s placement in the centre , she was often seen without any parental surveillance and looked unkempt . The child did not attend any pre - school institution . [ The applicant ’s ] family does not have electricity , water or gas in their house . ”

It also submitted a letter dated DATE in which the ORG polyclinic stated that PERSON was registered with that medical institution and that “ GPE ( the applicant ’s first name is N. ) , the child ’s mother , abused alcohol , and did not look after the child ’s health ; a neighbour accompanied the child on medical visits . ”

At the hearing on DATE the representative of ORG submitted that during the visit to the applicant ’s home on DATE the applicant and PERSON had been intoxicated and displayed signs of physical violence . The applicant had been behaving inappropriately and had an unkempt appearance . The neighbours reported that PERSON was not attending any pre - school institution , was generally neglected by her family , was usually dirty , and often asked for food . She also alleged that the applicant had been intoxicated when she appeared before ORG at the meeting on DATE .

NORP In court the applicant argued that she was a single parent and was receiving no support from anyone , including social services . She had financial difficulties , which prevented her from improving her living conditions , which were very basic . She explained that they used wood for heating and that the electricity had been cut off DATE previously after an electrical accident . She contended that she cared for her child , supplying her with toys , clothes and shoes , and that ORG had been provided with medical assistance by a medical institution other than the local polyclinic , submitting a copy of A. ’s immunisation record . She stated her wish to be with A. and her commitment to discharge her parental responsibilities . She referred to the letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) as evidence that she had requested access to her child , but to no avail . She argued that the incident of CARDINAL DATE had not been typical and could not constitute grounds for the removal of her parental authority . She submitted that she had left in order to work in GPE for a period of DATE , after which she had returned to unofficial employment in different jobs , and supplied confirmation that after the incident she had found official employment in GPE . She also supplied confirmation that she had obtained the documents necessary to enrol A. in a pre - school institution . She denied having been intoxicated at the ORG meeting on DATE and stated that she consumed alcohol only occasionally .

The court file also contained a statement signed by CARDINAL persons living in the applicant ’s neighbourhood , according to which A. had never been seen wandering around dirty and hungry , or begging .

The applicant attended the first CARDINAL hearings . She did not appear in court at the fourth and last hearing .

On DATE ORG decided to withdraw the applicant ’s parental authority , relying essentially on the arguments of ORG . The court found , inter alia , the following :

“ The representative of the [ Municipal Children ’s Centre ] submitted that ORG had been transferred from the [ hospital ] and was undergoing treatment for residual encephalopathy with delayed motor skills , mild leg movement disorder , thyroid gland disease , decreased need for sleep ( “ hyposomnia ” ) , and urinary insufficiency .

... [ the applicant ] lives together with her daughter A. ... in unsanitary conditions . She is unemployed and claims to leave periodically in order to work in GPE . ... On DATE ... the police found [ the applicant ] drunk and ... quarrelling violently in the presence of A. , who was dirty , crying , hungry and scared .

According to the representative of the [ ORG ] , during her visit [ on DATE ] she had found [ the applicant ] and her mother drunk , aggressive and with an unkempt appearance , the house and the yard disorderly and in a completely unsanitary condition . Citing neighbours , [ the representative of ORG service submitted that ] A. was neglected by her mother and grandmother , was not enrolled in a pre - school institution , was often seen wandering around dirty and asking for food . ... [ The applicant ] was drunk at the meeting on DATE of ORG . ORG concluded that the child ’s return to the family would put her life and health in danger .

... [ The applicant ] had neither visited nor asked about [ A. ] since her removal from home , which was evidence of [ the applicant ’s ] indifference towards [ A. ] , and her immoral life style and inappropriate behaviour prove that she is unfit to raise a child .

On DATE a medical examination confirmed [ the applicant ’s ] severe alcohol intoxication . ... On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office found [ the applicant ] guilty , under LAW , of failing to discharge her parental duties and fined her CARDINAL NORP lei ( CARDINAL ) .

... [ A. ’s ] psychological assessment reported balanced and quiet behaviour , delayed development of cognitive processes and of communication abilities , introversion , and a positive emotional state .

... [ The applicant ] neglected her parental duties , did not appear in court to object , did not take care of the child , did not provide material or emotional support , and had a negative influence on the child through her immoral conduct . ”

The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that she had been in legitimate employment since DATE , was making significant efforts to improve her life and wished to be with A. She referred to the evidence in the file that she had repeatedly attempted to visit her daughter but had been allowed to do so on CARDINAL occasions . She referred to the statements of a social worker before the court , according to which there had not previously been any reason to remove the child from the family or to withdraw the applicant ’s parental authority and no family support measures had been undertaken . The applicant submitted that she had not attended the last hearing due to health problems .

In the appellate proceedings , the representative of ORG stated that the applicant had been warned on several occasions that she needed to bring order to her house . She also submitted that PERSON had described to social services “ horrifying ” ( “ de groază ” ) moments experienced with her mother , entire DATE spent without eating anything and that she had expressed her wish not to be returned to her mother .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded , reiterating the reasons relied upon by the district court .

The applicant appealed again , arguing , inter alia , that her rights under LAW had been violated . She submitted that in DATE , while the proceedings were ongoing , she had cleaned up her house and improved the living conditions . She submitted that she had regularly visited A. at ORG and had brought parcels for her . She denied having been intoxicated at the meeting on DATE of ORG and noted that no evidence to support this allegation had been presented . She agreed that , in the light of her difficult material situation , A. ’s placement was an appropriate solution if applied in conjunction with measures to provide her with the necessary support , with a view to reuniting the family as soon as possible . She did not agree that the withdrawal of her parental authority was a proportionate measure under LAW .

On DATE ORG upheld the previous judgments for identical reasons . That judgment was final .

The applicant complained to the ORG prosecutor ’s office about A. ’s removal from her home on DATE . On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office informed her that A. had been lawfully removed from home and sent to the hospital for medical examination , given that on DATE the LOC police officers had found the applicant and her mother intoxicated and aggressive , their house in an unsanitary condition and the child NORP hungry and looking unkempt . The applicant was informed that A. had been placed in ORG under the care of ORG and that proceedings had been instituted on DATE to withdraw her parental authority .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request to visit A. , stating that she had not been kept informed DATE fate and that all her previous verbal enquiries had been refused . On DATE ORG refused the request and informed her that visits were prohibited while court proceedings concerning the withdrawal of her parental authority were pending .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG stated that ORG had placed A. in the care of the centre on DATE and had prohibited any visits by the applicant until the end of the court proceedings . The letter confirmed that the applicant had requested visits . Even though her requests had been refused , the applicant had managed to see her child on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . During DATE , she had brought several parcels with sweets and toys and had asked for further meetings . The applicant had been redirected to ORG to obtain an authorisation to visit A. before the end of the court proceedings .

In a letter addressed to ORG dated DATE , ORG submitted that it was inappropriate to examine the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE to visit NORP because the applicant ’s parental authority had been withdrawn , the child was to be placed under a relative ’s guardianship and it was for that guardian to decide on the frequency of contact between A. and her biological mother .

On DATE , an aunt , was appointed as ORG ’s guardian and the beneficiary of her child - care allowance . The applicant ’s requests to visit A. were refused by PERSON on the grounds that she no longer had any parental rights .

Following the applicant ’s repeated requests to visit A. , on DATE ORG allowed visits on DATE in the presence of A. ’s guardian .

On DATE the applicant gave birth to her second child . DATE , citing the lack of a home or resources to take care of the child , she declared her consent to the child ’s adoption .


GROMADA UKRAYINSKOYI GREKO-KATOLYTSKOYI TSERKVY SELA KORSHIV v. UKRAINE

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

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP religious community registered in the village of GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON .

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

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

In DATE the local community of ORG in the villages of GPE ( GPE ) built a church to GPE Assumption . In DATE , after the relevant territory had been joined to the GPE , the community of ORG formally became a part of ORG . The church of the Assumption was nationalised and transferred to ORG for religious purposes .

NORP In DATE part of the former ORG community members decided to create a community of ORG ( the applicant ) and another part decided to join ORG . The church of the Assumption remained municipal property , managed by ORG . On DATE the newly created ORG community entered into an agreement on the use of church LOC with ORG .

On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG decided that ORG and ORG communities in GPE could use the church jointly . They had to agree on the details of the agreement . The applicant stated that ORG did not agree to use the church jointly and prevented the applicant from having its religious ceremonies in the church .

On DATE and DATE and on DATE the applicant applied to ORG , seeking to be declared owner of the church of the Assumption . Having received no answer the applicant brought civil proceedings against ORG .

On DATE ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) allowed the applicant ’s claim and declared it owner of the church . ORG appealed .

On DATE the Higher Commercial Court quashed the judgment on the ground that ORG had not been informed about the proceedings . The case was remitted for examination to ORG .

In the course of the new examination , the applicant brought additional claims seeking to annul the agreement of CARDINAL DATE concluded by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court refused to entertain this action , indicating that the applicant was free to institute separate new proceedings concerning the agreement of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG found against the applicant , stating that transfer of the church to the applicant would lead to an infringement of the rights of ORG community . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . On DATE the Higher Commercial Court rejected the applicant ’s appeal in cassation . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice with regard to the activities of religious associations is summarized in Svyato - Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. GPE ( no . GPE , DATE ) , and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . Other relevant domestic regulations and administrative and judicial practice are briefly summarised below .

Under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Freedom of Conscience and LAW of DATE , the ORG undertook to transfer title to or possession of religious LOC and property belonging to the ORG to religious organisations . The transfer of property had to be done free of charge , on the basis of decisions of the GPE and ORG , regional administrations or ORG .

The relevant extracts from the text of section CARDINAL of the Act ( in force at the material time ) read as follows :

“ Religious organisations shall be entitled to use buildings and property placed at their disposal by the ORG , by organisations and by private individuals , on a contractual basis .

Religious buildings and property which constitute ORG - owned property shall be transferred by the organisations that administer them to the religious association for their unpaid use or shall be returned into their ownership without payment , in accordance with decisions by the regional , GPE and ORG , and in GPE , by ORG ...

Religious buildings and other property of historical , artistic and other cultural value shall be transferred into the use ... of the religious organisations and shall be used by them in compliance with the rules on protection and use of historical and cultural monuments ...

Requests made by religious organisations for transfer of religious buildings and property into ownership or unpaid use shall be considered within DATE , and information in writing sent to the petitioners .

Decisions by the ORG bodies with regard to ownership or use of religious buildings and property may be appealed against to a court in compliance with the procedure envisaged by LAW ... ”

The relevant extracts from ORG of GPE “ On the Procedure for Entry into Force of the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations Act ” , as amended on DATE , read as follows :

ORG of GPE , ORG and the regional , GPE and ORG shall ensure in accordance with the LAW the return to the ownership of or free use of religious buildings and property by religious groups , taking into account the following :

- the rights of the religious organisations which owned these buildings and property when they were nationalised ;

- the rights of the religious organisations which use these buildings and property in accordance with the procedure established by law ;

- investments made by the religious organisations in the property , rebuilding of the religious LOC and length of use of such LOC ;

- existence in the same residential area of other religious LOC and their use by other religious organisations ... ;

- other important matters in their entirety .

The decision of the relevant State body shall be reasoned ... ”

Under LAW of DATE “ On Measures Relating to the Return of Religious Property to Religious Organisations ” it was established that all religious premises and property owned by the ORG and used “ contrary to their mission ” should be returned to the religious associations within DATE . This period was further extended until DATE by ORG of DATE . On DATE the President issued another decree “ On Urgent Measures Relating to the Final Overcoming of ORG GPE with regard to Religion and on Restoration of LAW ” , in which he recommended that regional bodies of local selfgovernment finalise the transfer of church LOC that were being used “ contrary to their designation ” , and other buildings , to religious organisations .

Resolution No . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( in force until DATE ) “ On the List of Historical Architectural Monuments which shall not be subject to ORG by Religious Organisations ” , provided that the following cathedrals in LOC were not to be returned to religious organisations : FAC ( DATE ) , PERSON and ORG ( DATE ) .

By Resolution No . CARDINAL “ On ORG which are ORG to Religious Organisations ” , adopted on DATE by ORG , it was decided that such religious LOC could be given to religious organisations for permanent use if the relevant educational institutions , archives or cultural institutions were moved to other LOC .

On DATE ORG rejected a request for interpretation of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Act , stating , inter alia , that complaints concerning the use of religious buildings and property were to be examined by courts of general jurisdiction . It also referred to the recommendations of the Presidium of the Higher Commercial ( former ORG in that regard .

On DATE ORG rejected a request for interpretation of the provisions of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW , lodged by the NORP - Catholic community “ GPE ” , finding , inter alia , that there was no proof of inconsistent application of its provisions by the domestic courts .

According to paragraph CARDINAL of the Practice Recommendation , the religious LOC and property that belonged to ORG property were to be transferred into unpaid use or ownership of the religious organisations on the basis of the decisions taken by the regional , GPE and LOC city state administrations and ORG . The above - mentioned authorities were under an obligation to return such property , not used for religious purposes , within DATE . The return of property included transfer into unpaid use or ownership . The property could be returned to religious associations , which proved that they had owned the property before nationalisation . Thus , the Recommendation , with reference to Presidential Decree of DATE , mentioned that the transfer of ownership of the religious premises was CARDINAL of the measures envisaged by law . Moreover , religious LOC or property could be transferred to another religious association if there was no “ legal successor ” ( правонаступник ) religious association found in the vicinity where the religious LOC or property were situated .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Practice Recommendation provided that property was to be returned to the same religious confessions which had owned the religious buildings before nationalisation ( orthodox church to be returned to orthodox community , NORP - catholic church to NORP - catholic community , etc . ) . Information or written evidence as to the previous ownership of religious premises was to be sought from the parties , ORG archives , or ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Recommendation ) . Claims for the return of religious LOC to their original ownership could be lodged under the provisions of LAW with the commercial courts , and the lodging of complaints with the courts of general jurisdiction did not impede the examination of such claims ( paragraphs PERSON of the Recommendation ) .

Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the Practice Recommendation stated that all property belonging to religious organisations before the entry into force of the LAW was deemed to belong to the ORG and the ORG was to be regarded as the proper owner of such property . In particular , this ensued from the provisions of LAW . Therefore , in accordance with LAW , ORG bodies , which are mentioned in LAW of the law , could perform any lawful acts with respect to such property and the courts were to reject any claims against such lawful acts , unless these acts contravened the law .