Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2-1 - Life;Article 2 - Right to life)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . Her son , PERSON , was born in DATE .

NORP In DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of belonging to an illegal armed group . In DATE he was released from detention and after that date lived in GPE , working in the construction industry . The applicant often stayed with him in GPE .

On DATE the applicant travelled back to PERSON from GPE . Before her departure PERSON told her that he was going to study in GPE and that he had to go to GPE to finalise certain formalities .

On DATE the applicant received a message from her son on her mobile phone saying that he would be flying to GPE DATE . She did not hear from him again and had assumed that he was in GPE .

The applicant alleged that her son had been abducted in DATE by unknown servicemen and had disappeared in DATE . Below is a summary of her submissions to the ORG and to the national authorities .

According to the applicant ’s submissions of DATE , on DATE an unknown person had contacted the offices of ORG in GPE , claiming that a young man called PERSON , whose body exhibited signs of torture , had been placed under guard in ORG . Staff from PERSON decided to follow up this information , believing that the young man might be Mr PERSON . , who was considered to be a missing person .

On DATE ORG staff member PERSON had gone to ORG together with PERSON . ’s uncle , Mr PERSON . They had found a patient under guard in the hospital ’s surgical department . PERSON had peeped into the ward and had seen two armed guards wearing camouflage uniform and black caps bearing the letters “ K.R.A. ” in LANGUAGE . CARDINAL more guards had been sitting on beds near the door . On a bed near the window there had been a young man who was being assisted by a nurse . He was DATE , had bruises on his face , his head was bandaged , and he was covered by a sheet displaying red stains . Mr PERSON . realised that the patient was not his nephew . A hospital nurse had allegedly told PERSON that the patient was DATE , that his name was PERSON , and that he was from the village of GPE . He had been brought from PERSON , the medical staff had not been allowed to talk to him , his file contained no personal information , and he had been registered as “ unknown ” . Judging from his wounds , he might have been subjected to ill - treatment .

Later that day PERSON had contacted a relative of PERSON . That relative had showed PERSON and PERSON . a photograph of Mr PERSON and they had identified him as the patient .

On DATE the applicant ’s elder son , PERSON , had told her that he had received information from PERSON stating that there was a patient resembling Mr Apti Zaynalov under guard in ORG .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON had visited the LOC office in PERSON .

On DATE PERSON and PERSON had travelled to Achkhoy - Martan but had obtained no new information .

On DATE the applicant and ORG staff member PERSON PERSON had been received by ORG district prosecutor PERSON The latter had ordered CARDINAL officers to go with them to ORG in order to conduct an inspection there . Then he had left for a meeting . According to the applicant , the CARDINAL officers had accompanied her and PERSON to ORG of the Interior ( ROVD ) . The officers had entered the premises but the applicant and PERSON had remained waiting outside . After TIME the applicant and PERSON had returned to the prosecutor ’s office . However , they had not been admitted to the LOC and had gone from there to the hospital . There they were met by PERSON , who explained to the applicant in which ward Mr Apti Zaynalov was allegedly being held .

The applicant had approached the surgical department alone and had seen men in camouflage uniforms at its entrance . She had gone to the maternity department since it offered a good view of the surgical department and , having guessed that the patient was likely to be taken out through the security exit , had stood within QUANTITY of that exit . Within TIME a white NORP car with number CARDINAL on the registration plate had approached the security exit and TIME Mr Apti Zaynalov had been led out through the security exit . The applicant claims to have recognised him from his face , his height and his build . There had been stains of brilliant green antiseptic on his head and dark shadows around his eyes . He had been put into the back seat of the NORP car . The car had then approached the main hospital entrance , where CARDINAL servicemen had got into the car . The NORP car had then driven off and – beyond the gates – had been joined by a black car with CARDINAL on the registration plate . The applicant had then returned to the surgical department and saw that the ward described by PERSON PERSON was empty .

On DATE the applicant lodged applications with ORG of GPE , ORG and ORG at ORG of GPE in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) requesting that an investigation be instituted into her son ’s disappearance .

To support her submissions the applicant enclosed her own statement , statements by PERSON and PERSON , and copies of her applications to the ORG authorities .

According to the applicant ’s submissions of DATE , she had learnt that on DATE Mr PERSON had arrived in PERSON by train . At the railway station he had taken a taxi driven by PERSON . On the way , the taxi driver had stopped at a service station where he and Mr Apti Zaynalov had been apprehended by armed men and driven away . Shortly after Mr Z. Kh . had been apprehended , unidentified armed men had conducted an unauthorised search of his home .

On DATE Mr S. Kh . , PERSON . ’s father , had lodged an application with the LOC ROVD concerning the disappearance of his son . CARDINAL deputy heads of the ROVD had allegedly confirmed that he had been detained by the police .

On DATE PERSON had been abducted by unknown persons in front of her house in PERSON . Her body had been found DATE with gunshot wounds by the side of a road in ORG .

On DATE Mr Z. Kh . had been released . However , according to the applicant , he and his relatives had been so scared by what had happened to him that they had refused to make any witness statements in relation to the present case .

The following information was provided by the parties in reply to the ORG ’s requests for information and questions concerning the communication .

On DATE ORG ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) had received an application lodged by the applicant which stated that her son had been ill - treated by unidentified persons and was being held under guard in ORG . The applicant stated , in particular , that on DATE she had received a phone call from which she learned that her son was being kept under guard in the surgical department of that hospital with haematomas and head wounds . On the same date her application had been transferred to ORG .

On DATE the ROVD officers had been given explanations by PERSON . , the deputy director of ORG . He had submitted that on DATE he had been on duty at the hospital and Mr Apti Zaynalov had not been admitted . It was the first time he had heard this name and it had not been listed in the ORG register . Furthermore , no patient had been admitted at the hospital under guard .

On DATE , the head of the surgical department , had made a similar statement .

On the same date Mr NORP , deputy prosecutor of ORG , had submitted a written statement to the prosecutor of GPE . He stated that at TIME on DATE he had received the applicant ’s application alleging that her son was under guard in ORG with haematomas and wounds . He had forwarded the application to ORG in order that an inspection be conducted . The inspection of the hospital had been carried out by PERSON , the prosecutor ’s senior assistant , and PERSON , the head of the criminal investigations department of the ROVD , who had checked all the hospital wards , inspected the hospital register and questioned the medical staff in order to establish Mr Apti Zaynalov ’s whereabouts . However , the allegations of his placement in the surgical department of the hospital had not been confirmed .

In a written statement of the same date PERSON , the prosecutor ’s senior assistant , had confirmed Mr D. ’s statement .

On DATE ORG had received the applicant ’s application concerning the disappearance of her son , who had allegedly been taken from ORG to an unknown destination .

On DATE the principal physician of ORG had been asked to provide information about Mr Apti Zaynalov ’s placement in the hospital . According to the reply received , Mr PERSON had never been admitted to the hospital .

On DATE PERSON , a nurse at ORG , had submitted her explanations . On DATE she had been on duty at the hospital . ORG had not been admitted to the hospital during TIME and there had been no patient under guard in the hospital . Ms I. , the chief nurse , had made a similar statement .

On DATE , having taken account of the results of the inspection conducted , ORG had decided to refuse to institute criminal proceedings . The applicant had been informed of the decision .

According to the ORG , the applicant had not provided the investigating authorities with any information about the alleged detention of the taxi driver Mr Z. Kh . The authorities had decided to check the version involving the latter after coming across an article by PERSON , published on the Internet , which had linked the disappearance of Mr Z. Kh . to that of ORG . The Government enclosed a copy of the article .

On DATE Mr S. Kh . , Mr Z. Kh . ’s father , was asked to make a statement . He explained that his son was a driver and had a ORG Camry provided by his employer as well as his own car , a GAZ-CARDINAL . On DATE , DATE , at TIME Mr Z. Kh . had taken the PERSON to the service station for repair . At TIME DATE Mr S. Kh . had called his son on his mobile phone but there was no reply . Later the phone had been switched off . At TIME Mr S. Kh . had gone outside and had seen CARDINAL cars near Mr Z. Kh . ’s house : a silver PERSON and CARDINAL white ORG . In the yard of the house there had been CARDINAL armed men , aged DATE , wearing camouflage uniform . They had not been wearing masks and had appeared to be of NORP ethnic origin . At the time there had been no one in PERSON Z. Kh . ’s house because his wife and children had gone to visit relatives . When PERSON . approached the armed men , they had not offered any explanation and had forbidden him to come closer to his son ’s house , threatening him with automatic weapons . PERSON . had called the local ROVD and informed them of the situation . TIME later the armed men had left , taking Mr Z. Kh . ’s ORG Camry with them . TIME a man who had introduced himself as B. had called Mr S. Kh . ’s other son , Mr Sh . , and had told him to come to a certain junction to fetch his brother ’s car . TIME later an investigation team from the ROVD had arrived . They had gone to the junction along with PERSON . and had found Mr Z. Kh . ’s car there . On TIME the head of the ROVD had visited Mr S. Kh . , and had informed him about the disappearance of Mr PERSON . On the date of questioning , Mr PERSON . had still been missing .

On the same date PERSON . had informed the investigating authorities that his son , PERSON Z. Kh . , had just returned home safely .

Later that day Mr PERSON . had been questioned . He had explained that on DATE at TIME he had gone out in his GAZ-CARDINAL car and , having told his relatives that he was going to a service station , decided instead to go to the LOC resort of GPE for DATE , since his wife and children were away . He had been unable to call home because his phone had been lost . In Gelendzhik Mr PERSON . spent DATE living with a girl in a tent on the beach . In reply to the investigator ’s question why he had not called his family , PERSON . replied that while in GPE he had been drinking a lot and it had slipped his mind . Having returned home , he discovered that his relatives had been worried about him and had informed the authorities about his disappearance . Mr PERSON . had confirmed that he had not been a victim of any criminal offence . The fact that his ORG Camry had been taken from his house and later found in a specified place surprised him . He had no idea who could have done it or for what reason .

On DATE Mr PERSON . was questioned again . He confirmed his son ’s statements and confirmed that nothing bad had happened to Mr PERSON .

Following the institution of criminal proceedings into Mr Apti Zaynalov ’s disappearance ( see below ) , Mr PERSON . had been questioned as a witness on DATE and DATE . He had confirmed his previous statements and had informed the investigator that on DATE his son , PERSON . , had left for an unspecified NORP country . Mr PERSON . said that he had preferred it this way as he had been worried for the latter ’s safety . Later his other son , PERSON . , had also left GPE . He had also stated that he had not known of Mr Z. Kh . ’s acquaintance with Mr Apti Zaynalov , and his son had never mentioned the latter ’s name .

On DATE the ROVD ’s refusal to institute a criminal investigation of DATE was quashed . The applicant was informed accordingly .

DATE requests for information about Mr Apti Zaynalov were sent to various law - enforcement and security services in GPE , including ORG , ORG ( the ORG ) , ORG and Units of ORG [ ОГ ВОГО и П МВД DATE временная объединенная группировка органов и подразделений ORG ] and ORG .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was questioned . She reaffirmed her previous submissions . The applicant stated , inter alia , that in GPE on DATE her son had told her that he was going to GPE and then to GPE . He had had no intention of coming to GPE . She also submitted that she had learned from PERSON that Mr Apti Zaynalov had been taken from ORG to a hospital in GPE , where he had also been placed under guard . She was later questioned again , and reaffirmed her previous submissions .

On DATE criminal investigation no . DATE was instituted into the disappearance of Mr Apti Zaynalov . The applicant was informed of the decision . On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG transferred the case file from ORG to ORG for further investigation .

On DATE the case was transferred to department no . CARDINAL of ORG of ORG investigating cases of high importance .

On DATE Mr G. from PERSON was questioned . He confirmed that , to his knowledge , the applicant ’s son had been detained in ORG .

CARDINAL doctors and nurses from ORG were questioned CARDINAL and DATE . Among those questioned were the director of the hospital , his deputy , the head of the surgical ward , anesthesiologists , surgeons , and operational and post - operational nurses . Their submissions were largely concordant and confirmed that an unknown young man had been treated on the surgical ward DATE and DATE , whilst under the guard of unknown armed men . The personnel had not asked the patient ’s name , and in his medical file he had been recorded as “ unknown ” . No information about his admittance had been entered in the hospital ’s records . The provenance of the guards had also been unknown , and no one remembered any insignia or marks on their uniforms , except the hospital director who believed that it had been the insignia of ORG ; no one had seen or noted their service badges or IDs or the registration plates of the cars they had used ; no one had informed the law - enforcement authorities about a patient with gunshot wounds and trauma to the head . The guards had been armed with automatic weapons , had been of NORP origin and had spoken in NORP to the staff of the hospital and to the patient . They had treated the patient correctly and had done most of the everyday care , such as changing , washing and feeding the patient ; the doctors and nurses had not spoken to him , had had very little contact with him and , if at all , it had always been in the presence of the guards . Some doctors and nurses were asked if they would be able to describe or identify the guards , or to identify or sketch the patient , but they responded in the negative . The medical file opened for the unknown patient at the hospital disappeared after his departure , as did the bullet extracted from his wound .

The hospital director Mr ORG . testified on DATE that on DATE at TIME a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL men had arrived to the hospital in CARDINAL grey VAZ-CARDINAL cars . The men had been dressed in camouflage uniforms bearing ORG insignia and were armed with PERSON automatic rifles and hand pistols . They had said that they worked for the ROVD , and Mr PERSON . assumed that they meant ORG . The men had brought in a wounded man , aged DATE , QUANTITY tall , dark - skinned , dark haired . He had a gunshot wound to the right leg , a piercing wound to the abdomen and a head trauma . His wounds had been operated on , and a neurosurgical team from ORG had been called in to treat his head trauma . The armed guards had forbidden the hospital personnel , including the director , to talk to the patient . The hospital director had presumed that the patient was employed by the security services , perhaps by ORG , since at that time a number of servicemen were being treated at the hospital . For this reason , he had not passed on information about the patient to the police . At TIME on DATE the guards had removed the patient from the hospital without any warning . At that time the patient had been on the path to recovery , but was not completely healed .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel lodged an application with the investigating authorities requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted against the staff of ORG on the grounds of their failure to inform the relevant authorities that a patient with gunshot wounds had been admitted . On DATE this request was refused .

On DATE Mr M. was questioned . He worked at a service station in ORG . On DATE at TIME a white PERSON car bearing the registration plates of PERSON Z. Kh . ’s car had entered the station . Soon afterwards a man wearing a black uniform and armed with a PERSON submachine gun had entered the service station . He had aimed the gun at them and told PERSON M. to lie on the floor . He had then taken the driver outside and made him lie down on the ground . Mr M. could hear screaming in NORP outside and from the talking of approximately QUANTITY armed men he had grasped that they were tying down a guy who was resisting them . The man in the black uniform had returned and asked for a piece of wire . Mr PERSON had understood that the men had used it to tie the hands of the passenger in the GAZ-CARDINAL car . At some point he had heard two shots . The men then left in CARDINAL white PERSON cars , taking with them both the passenger and the driver . Later , officers from the checkpoint near the service station had removed the GAZ-CARDINAL car . Later that day and the following day , law - enforcement officers , including investigators , had come to the station and questioned PERSON about those events . PERSON would not have been able to identify the passenger , having noted only that he must have been CARDINAL to DATE . However , he would probably have been able to identify the driver , whom he described in detail . He might also have been able to identify the man in black uniform . At DATE , a man had come to the service station and had introduced himself as the brother of the driver apprehended on DATE . He had said that his brother had been released .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE concluded an internal inquiry into the actions of ORG district prosecutor PERSON and his deputy Mr D.

The document summarised the findings as follows :

“ On DATE [ the applicant ] and PERSON representative PERSON personally informed the acting ORG district prosecutor , PERSON , that on DATE [ the applicant ’s ] son , PERSON , had been kidnapped in GPE and that at the time in question he was being held on the surgical ward of ORG with numerous wounds and head traumas , guarded by unidentified armed persons .

On DATE PERSON recorded the application and gave it to his deputy PERSON for transfer to ORG .

On DATE the deputy district prosecutor Mr NORP forwarded [ the applicant ’s ] application to ORG for the conduct of a preliminary inquiry , in line with Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the [ Code of Criminal Procedure ] .

On DATE Mr PERSON was abducted from ORG by unidentified armed men and taken to an unknown destination .

On DATE , further to [ the applicant ’s ] submissions , criminal investigation file no . DATE was opened by an investigator of ORG [ department of ORG ] under LAW part CARDINAL [ murder ] of the [ Criminal Code ] .

On DATE the criminal file was transferred for further investigation to department no . CARDINAL of the [ ORG of ORG ] investigating cases of high importance .

The measures undertaken by the investigation department have not resulted in the ascertainment of ORG whereabouts or the identification of the persons who committed the crime .

From [ the applicant ’s ] explanations it follows that on DATE she and PERSON from Memorial informed the acting ORG district prosecutor , PERSON , that on DATE her son had been kidnapped in GPE and was being held on the surgical ward of ORG ... In their presence PERSON instructed his deputy PERSON and a senior assistant PERSON to go to the hospital together with [ the applicant ] ... and find out what was happening there . At CARDINAL p.m. Mr NORP and PERSON walked into the ROVD building , having asked the QUANTITY women to wait outside . After waiting for TIME , she and PERSON decided to enter the building but were not allowed to . They then went to the ORG district prosecutor ’s office ... , but the guards refused to let them enter , saying that there was no one inside . At TIME they finally went to ORG , where the applicant saw CARDINAL armed men putting her son into a car . There were no officers from the prosecutor ’s office at the hospital .

PERSON , the acting ORG district prosecutor , explained that on CARDINAL DATE he had received information from PERSON , the head of ORG district [ department of the ORG ] , that an active member of the [ illegal armed groups ] was being treated at ORG , guarded by a group of unknown armed persons . In order to check up on this information , Mr P , his deputy Mr NORP and deputy head of ORG district [ investigative committee ] went to ORG . There , guarded by CARDINAL unidentified men dressed in camouflage uniforms , they found a young man aged DATE , CARDINAL and QUANTITY tall , with his head covered in bandages . The guards prevented the prosecutor from entering the room to ascertain the patient ’s identity and , brandishing guns , they threatened to kill him . The director of ORG , PERSON . , explained that the patient was being treated by a doctor from another hospital , but refused to make written submissions .

These events were not reported by the prosecutors because they believed that the young man was a witness in a criminal case under investigation in LOC , and that his anonymity should be preserved in line with the requirements of the criminal procedure because he had disclosed information about the members of the [ illegal armed groups ] .

On DATE , having accepted [ the applicant ’s ] complaint concerning the presence of her seriously wounded son under the guard of unknown armed persons at ORG , PERSON registered it ... but did not realise that Mr Apti ORG was the person he had seen at the hospital DATE . He ordered his deputy Mr NORP to send the complaint to the ROVD and to go to the hospital in order to find out whether PERSON was there . On TIME CARDINAL DATE Mr NORP orally informed the prosecutor that PERSON was not at the hospital .

Deputy district prosecutor Mr NORP explained that ... on DATE he had gone to ORG together with senior assistant PERSON , the head of ORG , PERSON . , and the head of the [ operative criminal department ] of the ROVD , Mr M. They examined the register of persons with traumas who had been admitted to the hospital and did not find Mr Apti ORG ’s name there .

In breach of p. CARDINAL of ORG Directive of DATE No . CARDINAL “ On the submission of special dispatches and other indispensable information ” , the acting ORG prosecutor , PERSON , failed to inform the [ GPE ] prosecutor about the threat of murder made to him on DATE while he was on duty , which constituted a crime against his person .

In breach of the requirements set by ORG Directive of DATE No . CARDINAL “ On recording and tracking by the prosecutors of information about crimes ” , the acting prosecutor of ORG , PERSON , having on DATE received information about a crime , failed to take steps in order to protect citizens against a criminal act and to immediately inform the relevant investigation body .

In breach of LAW of LAW Code of Criminal Procedure ] , having been given information about kidnapping and the unlawful deprivation of liberty DATE crimes under Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW – [ Mr P. ] did not submit that information to ORG [ district department of ORG ] but instead , without any reason , instructed Mr NORP to forward it to ORG .

Improper handling by PERSON of [ the applicant ’s ] petition facilitated the kidnapping by criminals of PERSON from ORG , following which his fate remains unknown and a serious crime remains unresolved . ”

The document concluded that disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against PERSON for the improper execution of his duties , while his deputy PERSON should be reprimanded .

On DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant ’s counsel in reply to an earlier request , that in the course of a disciplinary investigation it had been established that PERSON , the former acting prosecutor of ORG , had failed to fulfil his duties when examining the applicant ’s application concerning her son ’s disappearance . In this connection disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on him .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a victim . To her submissions she added that , after having heard from PERSON that her son had been detained in ORG , she had verified the information “ through her own source ” , unrelated to ORG . The applicant also stated that she had not known anything about her son ’s acquaintance with Mr Z. Kh . She also asked that no further investigative activities at ORG be conducted involving her participation since , given her state of health , she could not endure the recollection of those traumatic events .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was again questioned . She submitted that on CARDINAL DATE her daughter had shown her a photo of Mr Apti Zaynalov that she had printed off from an Internet page together with the accompanying text . The text alleged that officers of ORG had apprehended a resident of ORG aged DATE who had confessed to being a member of an illegal armed group in ORG . Later the applicant had learned from her representatives that the photograph had been changed . The new photograph showed a man standing against the wall with his back towards the camera . The applicant provided the investigating authorities with both print - outs . The investigator then showed her a short video of a man walking out of a cell and subsequently standing facing a wall and asked her whether it was her son . The applicant stated she was positive that it was not her son .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the investigating authorities reiterating her request that they should not conduct any investigative activities requiring her participation due to the emotional impact on her . She stated at the same time that she was not refusing to cooperate with the investigation and had no grievances regarding its conduct .

On DATE ORG suspended the investigation . It was stated in the decision that DATE and DATE Mr Apti Zaynalov had been anonymously treated in ORG under the guard of armed men . The latter , having learned that Mr Apti Zaynalov ’s and PERSON ’s staff had lodged applications with the law - enforcement agencies , had taken him from the hospital to an unknown destination . Mr Apti Zaynalov ’s whereabouts had not been ascertained .

On DATE the applicant asked a leave to study the case file and lodged a complaint against the decision of DATE with a higher prosecuting official .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel lodged a complaint against the refusal of CARDINAL DATE to institute criminal proceedings against the staff of ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed this complaint . The decision stated , in particular :

“ ... In the course of the investigation it has been established that on DATE Mr Apti Zaynalov was abducted by unidentified persons in an unestablished place and then taken with shotgun wounds to ORG Hospital where he underwent treatment for DATE and was then taken away by unidentified armed persons wearing camouflage uniform . So far his whereabouts have not been established .

In breach of [ an applicable ] instruction , the medical staff of [ Achkhoy - Martan Hospital ] did not inform ORG about the admittance of Mr Apti Zaynalov . [ ... ]

In the course of the investigation ... all the staff of ORG were questioned . [ They ] explained that they believed the armed men who were guarding the unidentified patient with gunshot wounds to be policemen , and for this reason had not informed the ROVD of the patient ’s admittance . [ ... ]

Furthermore , during Mr Apti Zaynalov ’s stay at ORG the former acting prosecutor of ORG , PERSON , visited [ the hospital ] to conduct an investigation . [ He ] met the former director of the hospital ... and established the fact that Mr PERSON was in the hospital under armed guard , but took no further steps to investigate the situation properly . [ ... ]

In the circumstances , the failure of the medical staff to inform ... the ROVD of ... Mr Apti Zaynalov ’s admittance does not call for an additional investigation since all relevant materials are available in the case file . [ ... ] ”

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

In DATE the applicant ’s counsel appealed to ORG of PERSON against the refusal of the investigating authorities to conduct certain investigative activities .

On DATE LOC granted the appeal and declared the refusal unlawful .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the applicant began living with A.A.

On DATE she gave birth to a son , PERSON

In DATE relations between the couple deteriorated and they separated . The child continued to live with the applicant .

In DATE the applicant ’s brother - in - law , PERSON , asked the applicant ’s permission to take the child for DATE to see his father , PERSON , who was visiting from GPE . The applicant agreed .

The child was never returned to the applicant . PERSON took the boy to GPE , and the applicant has not seen him since . She twice went to GPE to find PERSON , but in vain .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of Grozny ( “ the ORG ” ) , seeking to determine the child ’s place of residence as being with her . She also asked the court to order PERSON to pay child maintenance .

On DATE ORG took a decision to leave the applicant ’s claim without consideration owing to a failure by the parties to appear .

The applicant went to the police , asking for their help to locate A.A.

On DATE the proceedings were resumed at the request of the applicant .

A.A. lodged a counterclaim with ORG , seeking to have the child ’s place of residence to be determined as being with him .

On DATE ORG decided that the child should live with his mother , the applicant , and that PERSON should pay the applicant child maintenance . PERSON ’s application for a residence order was dismissed . PERSON appealed .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the Supreme Court ” ) upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG clarified its judgment of DATE and held that the operative part of the judgment should read as follows : “ to remove the minor [ child ’s name ] , born on DATE , from [ A.A. ] , residing at the address ... , and to hand him over to his mother ORG ” .

NORP However , PERSON refused to comply with the judgment .

On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .

On DATE bailiffs from the Inter - district Bailiffs Service of GPE opened enforcement proceedings .

It was established from ORG mother that PERSON lived in GPE . Consequently , the enforcement file was referred to ORG in GPE .

On DATE a bailiff from ORG visited PERSON ’s presumed place of residence in GPE and established that PERSON and the child did not live there and were not registered there . The relevant report was drafted .

On DATE the bailiff received a statement from the owner of the above - mentioned flat , who stated that PERSON and the boy had left the flat in DATE .

NORP The bailiff obtained further information that in DATE the child had not attended his kindergarten in GPE , kindergarten no . CARDINAL , and that there was no data about PERSON in the individual personalised tracking system of ORG for GPE and GPE Region .

On DATE the enforcement file was returned to the bailiffs service in GPE .

On DATE a bailiff from ORG of ORG found that his counterparts in ORG had failed to take all the measures provided by the law on enforcement proceedings necessary for the enforcement of the judgment of DATE . Namely , they had failed to inspect the LOC and draw up the relevant act of inspection , to involve the local police in carrying out the enforcement measures , to question PERSON ’s partner PERSON , named as the child ’s mother in his medical record , and to institute a search for PERSON and the child . On DATE the enforcement file was again referred to ORG in GPE .

In DATE the applicant enquired with ORG about the progress of the enforcement proceedings . She was informed about the referral of the enforcement file to ORG in ORG in DATE .

The applicant then contacted ORG of ORG , which on DATE informed her that they did not know the whereabouts of the enforcement file .

At the request of ORG , on DATE ORG issued it with a duplicate of the writ of execution of the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a court complaint about the inaction of ORG of ORG .

On DATE ORG held that DATE and DATE no enforcement actions had been carried out by ORG of ORG to enforce the judgment of DATE . ORG further held that the inaction of the bailiffs service had led to an unjustifiably long delay in the enforcement of the judgment , which violated the applicant ’s right to judicial protection , including her right to have the judgment enforced . It therefore found the bailiffs service ’s inaction unlawful and ordered it to remedy the above violations .

On an unspecified date after the above judgment the enforcement file was referred back to GPE , where a search for PERSON and the child was instituted .

On DATE PERSON ’s right to leave the country was temporarily restricted . On DATE ORG for Moscow Region was entrusted with carrying out enforcement actions in GPE Region aimed at establishing ORG and the child ’s place of residence with PERSON ’s partner ORG were sent to ORG of GPE to trace the child . CARDINAL of A.A. ’s presumed places of residence in GPE , including the CARDINAL visited in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , were visited . Nobody opened the door at the flats in question or at the neighbouring flats .

On DATE the enforcement file was referred to the interdistrict special enforcement unit of ORG ( межрайонный отдел по особым исполнительным производствам неимущественного характера PERSON службы судебных приставов по PERSON ) .

It was established that the child was not attending a school in GPE and that he was not attached to any public health - care structure in that city . However , on several occasions he had consulted doctors and received treatment in medical establishments there , most recently in DATE . It was further established that DATE PERSON had not made any payments using his bank cards and that he had not married .

On DATE and DATE another CARDINAL of PERSON ’s presumed places of residence in GPE were visited . It was established that PERSON had never lived at the first address . He had lived at the other address , but by that time the flat had been rented to someone else .

On DATE and DATE a bailiff asked ORG of the ORG ( ORG по району PERSON МВД PERSON г. GPE ) and ORG in GPE ( УГИБДД ГУ МВД PERSON по г. PERSON ) respectively for assistance in searching for the child and locating PERSON ’s vehicle .

On DATE the bailiff ordered that PERSON be brought in by force .

NORP On DATE the bailiff attempted to bring in PERSON by force by paying a visit to another of his presumed places of residence in GPE . However , the door was opened by PERSON who explained that PERSON did not live at that address on a regular basis , that he rarely visited and that she did not know his whereabouts .

On DATE the bailiff sought the help of the joint stock company ORG in order to obtain information about any railway travel by PERSON On DATE it reported that PERSON had bought a train ticket from GPE to GPE for DATE . No tickets had been bought for the child .

On DATE ORG provided the bailiff with information on the movement of money in PERSON ’s bank accounts , with information about the cash dispensers where withdrawals had been made .

The search dossier was subsequently sent to ORG for GPE to establish the whereabouts of PERSON and the child and to obtain information from people residing at an address that had been indicated in PERSON .

To the present date the domestic authorities do not know the whereabouts of PERSON and the child and the judgment of DATE remains unenforced .

The applicant sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against her brother - in - law for the alleged abduction of the child , but without success . After several rounds of pre - investigation inquiries , ORG of LOC in GPE took several decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime . The most recent refusal , dated DATE , was set aside on DATE and an additional pre - investigation inquiry was ordered .

According to the applicant , she saw her son and ORG on CARDINAL DATE while she was on her way to ORG . The applicant bent down to hug the boy . At that moment PERSON punched the applicant close to her left ear . She fell down , hitting her head on the pavement and lost consciousness . The applicant recovered in hospital and was subsequently diagnosed by a forensic medical expert as having a traumatic rupture of the left eardrum , intracranial hypertension syndrome , astheno - neurotic syndrome and bruising of the soft tissues of the left cheekbone . After several rounds of pre - investigation inquiries about the above incident , ORG of LOC of PERSON of ORG in GPE took several decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON for lack of evidence of a crime . The most recent refusal , dated DATE , was set aside on DATE and an additional preinvestigation inquiry was ordered .

No further information was made available to the ORG regarding the outcome of the additional pre - investigation inquiries .


Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

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

The applicant was born in GPE . In DATE his father , mother , brother and sister moved to GPE in GPE and subsequently acquired NORP nationality , while he continued to live with his grandfather in GPE , visiting them in DATE . After his grandfather had died and the applicant had finished the secondary school , in DATE he joined his family in GPE .

The applicant took a mandatory blood test with a view to obtaining a health certificate to support his application for a temporary residence permit . He was found to be HIV - positive .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s presence in NORP undesirable ( the “ exclusion order ” ) on the ground that he was HIV - positive .

By judgment of DATE , ORG in GPE rejected the applicant ’s challenge to the exclusion order , finding that it was issued in full compliance with NORP law .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the applicant left GPE to comply with the exclusion order .


No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Diósd .

On DATE the applicant organised a demonstration aimed at forcing the authorities to preserve the ballot papers of the DATE legislative elections with a view to a potential recounting .

The Government submitted that the ballot papers were bound for statutory destruction on DATE as per section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Decree no . CARDINAL . ( ORG . CARDINAL . ) BM on the Procedural Time - limits for ORG DATE .

In the applicant ’s view , the relevant law could be understood DATE and was by DATE to the effect that the ballot papers could be destroyed as early as DATE .

Previously , on DATE , ORG had decided not to put on the agenda a bill for the amendment of the DATE statutory preservation period of the ballots .

NORP The event organised by the applicant – which had not been announced to the police – consisted of completely blocking all CARDINAL lanes of a centrally situated bridge over the GPE , FAC , by parking CARDINAL cars across it , with their doors locked . The demonstration started at TIME The demonstrators , including the applicant , refused to comply with the police ’s order to remove the vehicles and leave . Apart from ambulances , no vehicles could pass the blockade .

By CARDINAL TIME a crowd had gathered and the situation evolved into a massive traffic jam all over GPE . At TIME the cars were finally towed away by the police , and the traffic flow resumed at TIME .

On DATE the Pest Central District Court imposed a regulatory fine of MONEY ( ORG ) on the applicant . The court held that the applicant , by not complying with the police ’s instruction to leave the site of the demonstration , had committed the regulatory offence of disorderly conduct within the meaning of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . ORG .

International observers , in particular ORG in LOC ( OSCE ) , found that the DATE parliamentary elections had been conducted in a manner consistent with international standards and that the NORP electoral system had provided the basis for a generally transparent , accountable , free , fair and equal process .

The NORP media widely covered the events of DATE and , in an official communiqué , the President of the Republic condemned the incident , declaring it illegal . He underlined that GPE was a stable parliamentary democracy where human rights were observed and where even critical views should be voiced in a lawful manner .

On DATE the GPE ORG fined the applicant for a parking offence which consisted of his parking his car in the middle of FAC on DATE , necessitating its being towed away . On appeal , on CARDINAL DATE ORG reduced the fine to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

Criminal proceedings were subsequently instituted against the applicant and his accomplices . On DATE he was convicted of “ disturbance of public works ” within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

The Pest Central District Court dismissed the defendants’ arguments according to which they had been exercising their freedom of assembly . Making reference to the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ) , the court made a distinction , holding that the applicant ’s action could not be regarded as a spontaneous and prompt response to an event ( the court was satisfied that the statutory date for ballot paper destruction was DATE as per Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see above paragraph CARDINAL ) ) , nor was it lawful like in PERSON , since it had contravened LAW and disturbed the functioning of “ public works ” . In the latter regard , the court observed that the demonstration had caused the traffic to become paralysed all over the capital for TIME and disturbed the running of CARDINAL bus lines in respect of CARDINAL scheduled individual bus trips , concerning CARDINAL passengers .

The applicant was sentenced to DATE of community work .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . In response to the arguments of the accused on appeal , the court noted that “ the message of the judgment is not that non - notified assemblies can not be peaceful ; the message is that an assembly , notified or non - notified , is not peaceful where , by its very manner , it constitutes unlawful conduct . ” The court referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . III of DATE on ORG , according to which “ the exercise of the right of assembly may not constitute an offence , or instigation thereto , or violate the rights and freedoms of others ” . Quoting the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , ORG established that “ in peaceful assemblies the protection provided under LAW shall be ensured for the participants as long as they do not commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion ” .

In sum , the court held that “ it directly follows from the case law of ORG and ORG that the peaceful or non - peaceful nature of an assembly does not depend on whether a participant broke or smashed an asset or applied violence against a property . An assembly may be rendered non - peaceful by passive conduct as well . In its outward appearance the accused parties’ conduct seemed to be peaceful ; it is the causal result of their conduct , the major disturbance of road traffic , which rendered their conduct non - peaceful and thereby not protected under the law . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the GPE petition for review . It added to the reasoning of the lower courts that “ criminal law rules can not be excluded or restricted by invoking the right of assembly ; the exercise of the right of assembly shall not be exempt from compliance with criminal law restrictions . ”

This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any person who interferes with the functioning of public works to a considerable extent by damaging their equipment , cables or interfering with them in any other way , is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment of DATE .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of this section , ‘ public NORP shall mean public utilities , public transportation operations , telecommunications networks , as well as plants producing war materials , energy or basic materials designed for industrial use . ”

Section CARDINAL of Act no . V of DATE on Certain Amnesty Measures provided ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) :

“ In connection with the road blockades paralysing the country ’s life from CARDINAL DATE , no criminal proceedings shall be instituted or conducted for ...

d ) the disturbance of public works ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . ”

The relevant domestic law on freedom of assembly , in particular LAW of LAW no . III of DATE , is outlined in DATE of the judgment PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) read in the light of Article 10 - (Art. 10) Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , ORG , GPE .

The applicant was the leader of a trade union in a private company . His co - workers expressed a wish to hold a public assembly on DATE on DATE and the applicant , in his capacity as trade union leader , decided to help them . According to him , such help was “ an indirect expression of his own opinion ” . The applicant distributed banners and explained that it would be more practicable to stage solo demonstrations . To avoid prosecution for holding a public assembly without notifying the authorities in advance , the applicant suggested that his co - workers position themselves at some distance from each other , for instance on different streets . At the time , there was no federal or regional statutory requirement concerning the minimum distance between simultaneous solo demonstrations ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” ) .

The applicant was then arrested and taken to the police station , where he was held for TIME .

On DATE a justice of the peace found him guilty under LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) and fined him MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY at the time ) . The court considered that the applicant and his co - workers had met in CARDINAL place ; the applicant had given instructions to the others and had distributed banners ; he had taken them to the place of the demonstration . In the court ’s view , the above circumstances disclosed the presence of a group event in the form of a static demonstration ( a “ picket ” ) , and confirmed the applicant ’s role as its organiser . Thus , it was incumbent on the applicant to lodge a prior notification about this event to the competent authority as required by section CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

The applicant appealed noting that the ORG defined a “ picket ” as a form of public expression of opinion where CARDINAL or more citizens with placards , banners and other means of visual expression stationed themselves near the target object of the “ picket ” . However , there had been a separate “ target object ” for each solo demonstrator ; the demonstrators had been positioned at a considerable distance from each other ( for instance , QUANTITY for QUANTITY of them ) ; thus , he could not be lawfully considered as an organiser of a group event .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE he had a sexual relationship with a woman who gave birth to a daughter , PERSON , on DATE .

As the applicant denied that he was the father , PERSON ’s legal guardian brought proceedings on her behalf in ORG ( okresní soud ) for a declaration of paternity .

After giving birth to PERSON , but before initiating the aforementioned proceedings , the mother married another man .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant was PERSON ’s father and ordered him to contribute to her maintenance .

The court reached its finding after hearing evidence from several witnesses . It also had regard to documentary evidence and took into consideration the results of a blood test known as a “ bio - hereditary test ” ( dědicko - biologická zkouška ) . In addition , it established that the applicant had had intercourse with the mother sometime CARDINAL and DATE before PERSON ’s birth . In such cases , a presumption of paternity arose under LAW , unless there were clear grounds to rebut the presumption . Another man had also had intercourse with the mother at the crucial time , however , the blood test established that he was not the father .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( krajský soud ) and requested another expert opinion . ORG denied the request because the facts had been proved to a sufficient degree . It eventually upheld the judgment of ORG on DATE , which became final on DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant requested that ORG ( GPE státní zástupce ) challenge his paternity in court . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE he was informed that the requirements of LAW to initiate such proceedings had not been met . PERSON , by that time an adult , did not want to challenge paternity , it was not in her interests and the applicant had not produced any expert evidence credibly disproving it .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON underwent a DNA examination . The resulting report of DATE unequivocally confirmed that the applicant was not PERSON ’s father .

On DATE the applicant submitted a new request to ORG to challenge his paternity in court .

On DATE the Prosecutor General informed the applicant that the determination of his paternity had been decided by ORG under LAW and that therefore the prosecution service could not initiate proceedings under LAW of LAW . ORG only had that specific competence as regards statutory presumptions of paternity under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . When paternity had been established by a judicial declaration under LAW and the judgment had come into legal force , as in the applicant ’s case , the law did not provide for any possibility to challenge it .

Relying on his rights under LAW , the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint ( ústavní stížnost ) against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . He maintained that he had proved that he was not PERSON ’s biological father and requested that ORG ( GPE PERSON ) order the Prosecutor General to initiate proceedings and challenge his paternity . He also argued that Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW were unconstitutional .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . It noted that his paternity had been established by a judicial decision which had come into legal force and stated , inter alia , that the competence of ORG could only apply if all the legal requirements had been fulfilled , which was not , however , the applicant ’s case .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She has suffered since her early childhood from cerebral palsy and uses a wheel chair . In DATE she was deprived of her legal capacity on account of “ her physical illness and intellectual underdevelopment ” . On DATE her legal capacity was fully restored by a ruling of ORG .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ FAC ) asked ORG to institute proceedings with a view to partially depriving the applicant of her legal capacity in order to prevent her from disposing of her assets . They relied on a previous ruling of DATE by the same court by which the applicant had been deprived of her legal capacity ( see the preceding paragraph ) . They further asserted that the applicant had been suffering from “ grave bodily damage ” ( velika tjelesna oštećenja ) since early childhood , as she had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and various chronic illnesses such as diabetes , high blood pressure and defective eyesight .

They further asserted , relying on a statement given by the applicant ’s son at the ORG and a report by the ORG ’s social worker , that the applicant ’s condition had worsened after she had undergone an operation on her head on DATE . Since then she had suffered from personality changes , manifested in managing her money in an irrational manner , such as by not paying the DATE instalments for the purchase of her flat , electricity , water and other bills , and by purchasing mobile telephone cards instead of food . This could have led to the applicant ’s eviction from the flat she occupied , as she had already received a final warning that a civil action in that respect was to be lodged .

The ORG ’s request was supported by evidence , such as an electricity bill of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) dated DATE , a copy of a final demand for payment of DATE instalments for the purchase of the applicant ’s flat , with the debt amounting to HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as at DATE , a notice that the water supply for the applicant ’s flat would be stopped as of CARDINAL DATE on account of non - payment of a debt in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and a debt recovery notice for the amount of HRK CARDINAL payable to ORG ( ORG ) .

On DATE the ORG appointed its employee , PERSON , as the applicant ’s legal guardian in the proceedings before ORG . In the proceedings before that court the guardian gave her full consent to the ORG ’s application . The applicant was represented by a lawyer of her own choosing .

ORG heard the applicant on DATE and established that :

“ The respondent was found at her address in a wheelchair . She gave very meaningful answers ; [ she ] stressed that she acted autonomously , kept her flat tidy , prepared her meals and was provided with help by her son and a tenant . She moved about independently in her wheelchair and did her own shopping , [ and ] paid [ her own ] bills , which gave rise to difficulties during DATE . She stated that in the period when she had underwent a head surgery in DATE [ DATE ] , she had been late with paying her utility bills ... She did not agree with the proceedings [ being brought ] and considered that she did not need a guardian . She stressed that she regularly took [ her ] prescribed medication ... It is to be noted that the respondent was presentable and her home was tidy . ”

NORP In her written submissions the applicant explained that during her hospitalisation she had empowered her son to retrieve money from her bank account and pay the utility bills , which he had not done but had instead taken the money for himself . She asked that her son be examined by the court .

A psychiatric report commissioned for the purposes of the proceedings , drawn up on DATE by PERSON and GPE , in so far as relevant reads as follows :

“ A psychiatric examination of the respondent was carried out on DATE at her home ... She stated that she had completed elementary school and had been an average pupil , that she had studied law for DATE and knew all about the law . To me she said : ‘ You know how it was when you operated on me.’ She is dissatisfied with the court proceedings [ being brought ] : ‘ I dislike the PERSON [ ORG ] because they attempted to send me to [ a home in ] ORG And in respect of her son she said : ‘ I am sorry when someone blackmails him’ . She stated that she had been paying all her bills and that ‘ I previously had a huge negative [ balance ] , [ because ] I had to pay for the hospital’ . She stated that she had a lot of acquaintances who were her former lodgers , whom she saw regularly when out and about in her wheelchair in her neighbourhood and ‘ they all respect me’ . Upon a direct question she denied having any mental problems .

Psychological status : conscious , contact easily established , uncertain about time , in other respects well oriented . Has a wide and viscous ( viskozni ) thought process , with loss of determining tendency . Interacts without distance . In thought content confabulatory with a paranoid position , projections and infantile explanation . Basic disposition is elevated . Intellectually – memory functions are primarily insufficient at the ORG level , additionally compromised with psychoorganic type . Lacks insight into her condition .

ORG suffers from ORG . Little , parapresis spast . , monoparesis ext . sup . spast . sin . , ORG , condition after brain haemorrhage , condition after stroke , condition after meningoencephalitis , with a lack of insight into her condition [ and ] the need for and purpose of treatment . Owing to this , she is not able to entirely look after her personal needs , rights and interests . Also , because of her state of health and lack of insight she may jeopardise the rights and interests of others . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged written submissions whereby she objected to the psychiatrists’ findings , stating that it was not clear how they had concluded that she was unable to properly dispose of her money , given that the debts referred to had been incurred by her son when she had been hospitalised .

At a hearing held on DATE the psychiatrists gave the following opinion evidence :

“ We entirely endorse our written report of DATE and to the objections filed by the respondent we would state the following : on the basis of the enclosed medical records , social history and our own examination we have established that the respondent suffers from PERSON . She also suffers from triparesis with preserved functions of her right hand , mild mental retardation , and conditions following a brain haemorrhage and meningoencephalitis . Her intellectual capabilities are , owing to the above - mentioned [ conditions ] , additionally compromised on the psychoorganic type . During the interview we noticed confabulations in the content of her thoughts , that is to say fabricated content , a paranoid position , in particular as regards her close family and the employees of the social welfare centre , and infantile explanation . The respondent lacks insight into her condition . All this led us [ to conclude ] that the respondent does not possess sufficient intellectual capacity to adequately protect her own rights and interests , and because of her lack of insight she might also jeopardise the rights and interests of others . We therefore consider that the application for deprivation of the respondent ’s legal capacity as regards disposing of her money and assets and as regards taking decisions about her medical treatment , is appropriate . ”

On DATE ORG partially deprived the applicant of her legal capacity , thereby stopping her from disposing of her money and other assets and from making independent decisions concerning her medical treatment . The ruling relied exclusively on the opinion given by the CARDINAL psychiatrists and extensively repeated their findings stated in their written report and their oral evidence given at the hearing of DATE .

The applicant lodged an appeal on DATE , in which she argued that partially depriving her of her legal capacity solely on the basis of the psychiatric report had not been justified , because the psychiatrists had lacked knowledge of how she spent her money and how she disposed of her assets . She argued that she had purchased the flat where she lived herself and there was no danger that she would give it up . The assertion that she was paranoid as regards her close family members was not correct . She had had troubled relations with her son at times because he had moved into her flat with his girlfriend and her daughter and had had an interest in having her removed from the flat and placed in a home . Therefore , she had successfully sought their eviction from her flat . She had also changed her bank and her son no longer had authority to use her credit card . She lived a peaceful life , and was a member of ORG and Poliomyelitis . The court conducting the proceedings had had the chance to establish that normal communication with her was possible and that she lived in a tidy flat . The ORG had not proven the need for her to be partially deprived of her legal capacity . Only a bookkeeping expert could have established the facts concerning her debts .

The applicant ’s appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE , which again relied extensively on the psychiatric report . The appeal court added that the applicant had been hospitalised DATE and DATE and DATE , whereas the unpaid bills ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were dated DATE ( electricity bill of HRK CARDINAL ) , DATE ( HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE instalments for the purchase of the flat ) and CARDINAL DATE ( water bill of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , which indicated that the debts concerned a much longer period than the applicant ’s hospitalisation .

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint , in which she repeated the arguments from her appeal , stressing that the debts in question had been incurred during the period in which she had been hospitalised and her son had had her bank card . Instead of paying her bills he had used the money from her account for his own needs . She added that CARDINAL of the psychiatrists who had drawn up the report on her mental state had interviewed her . She also stressed that it was entirely unclear what rights and interests of others she might jeopardise . The complaint was dismissed by ORG on DATE .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the Bar . She signed an oath “ to be faithful to GPE , to observe its LAW and laws , to honestly perform her duties as an advocate ( a lawyer who has been admitted to the Bar ( advokatas ) ) , to observe moral norms , citizen ’s rights and freedoms , and to protect professional secrets ” . DATE the applicant registered a law office in her name , and started practising law .

At the applicant ’s request her name was taken of the list of practising advocates on DATE . As noted by the civil courts afterwards , the applicant had acknowledged that her request had been made owing to the fact that a criminal case had been pending against her ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of forgery of documents ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) and fraud ( LAW ) . The court established that while pursuing her professional practice , the applicant had on CARDINAL occasions falsely claimed in writing that she had provided legal services within the framework of the ORG - paid legal - aid scheme . In addition , the court found that the applicant had forged the signatures of pre - trial - investigation officers on the above documents , submitted them to court officials to receive payment and thereby obtained payment . The crimes she had committed fell into the category of minor intentional crimes ( nesunkus tyčinis nusikaltimas ) , because the maximum possible sanction for them was DATE of deprivation of liberty ( LAW of LAW ) . In the applicant ’s case , as a sanction , she was ordered to pay a fine , which she did on DATE . Her conviction expired DATE after she had paid the fine , that is to say on DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to readmit her to the Bar .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request , inter alia , on the grounds that the applicant did not have high moral character ( nepriekaištinga reputacija ) . Given that DATE and DATE had passed since the applicant ’s conviction , and taking into account the nature of the applicant ’s criminal offence – misappropriation of property for non - existent legal services – as well as the specifics of the professional practice of an advocate , it was reasonable to conclude that the applicant had not regained high moral character within such a short time frame , to meet the requirements set out in Articles QUANTITY § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the PERSON on the Bar ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .

The applicant challenged this decision before ORG . On DATE the court heard the applicant ’s case . CARDINAL witnesses were questioned in court as to the applicant ’s reputation ; most of them testified to having known the applicant before DATE , when she had been working at ORG . The court partly annulled ORG decision and ordered the latter to reconsider the applicant ’s request to be readmitted to the Bar . The court noted that the applicant had been convicted of a minor intentional crime . On DATE when the applicant had submitted the request to be readmitted to the Bar , her conviction had expired . Consequently , and relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG found that ORG had erred in finding that the applicant had not met the high - moral - character criterion .

ORG appealed . It pointed out that the applicant was not of high moral character as she failed to meet the criteria listed in LAW Refusal to readmit the applicant to the Bar had been based on an evaluation of the nature of actions for which she had been convicted .

In her defence , the applicant submitted to the appellate court a character reference from a managing director of a private company , where the applicant had worked as marketing director . The reference stated that the applicant performed her duties well ; and that she was responsible and had a sense of initiative . As shown from the summary of her arguments by ORG , the applicant did not plead that reputation related restrictions on her practising law as an advocate had been more severe than those applied to other law - related professions .

On DATE ORG allowed ORG appeal and quashed the first - instance court ’s decision . As to the question of high moral character , ORG underlined that higher standards were applicable to advocates , as only persons of untainted reputation could participate in the justice system without discrediting it . Therefore , when evaluating an advocate ’s conduct it was not sufficient to have regard only to whether the person obeyed the law . It was also pertinent to see a person ’s behaviour in the context of the legal norms that regulate the ethics of the advocates’ profession . In this connection LAW underlined that an advocate should observe legal and moral duties ( point CARDINAL . ) , should not discredit advocate ’s name , the oath he or she swore or the ideal of justice ( point CARDINAL . ) . An advocate also had duties set out in the LAW , the LAW on the Bar and LAW ( point DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG concurred with the first - instance court ’s finding that the term of the applicant ’s conviction had expired and that therefore she could not be reproached under LAW ) of the LAW on the Bar . Nonetheless , taking into account the fact that she had committed the criminal offence in the course of her professional practice and that her professional practice had been aimed at committing crimes , of which there were CARDINAL counts , it was reasonable to conclude that the applicant ’s behaviour did not meet the criteria set out in DATE ) of the PERSON on the Bar . That the conviction had expired did not mean ipso facto that the applicant had regained an irreproachable reputation within the meaning of LAW ) of that PERSON . For the appellate court , insufficient time had passed from the date when the applicant had committed the crime to when she had asked ORG to readmit her to the Bar .

The appellate court also noted that a person could submit a request to be admitted to the Bar and to prove that he or she had regained high moral character . However , it was then for the court to establish , of its own motion , whether sufficient time had passed for a person ’s rehabilitation to be objectively validated . A person who claimed to have regained high moral character should bring clear and persuasive evidence that he or she had been following the ethical and disciplinary rules . It was then for the court to examine what the nature of the infringements of law was , what personal situation had led to the infringements being committed , and whether those factors still applied . In the present case , despite DATE having passed since the date the crime had been committed , there was still no sufficient basis to conclude that the applicant was of high moral character within the meaning of LAW ) of the PERSON on the Bar .

ORG lastly dismissed certain arguments by the applicant that the lower court had erred when interpreting some other legal norms unrelated to the matter of the applicant ’s reputation .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . She raised a number of arguments about the Bar qualification exam and professional reputation , without maintaining that the criminal conviction had placed her in a worse situation than representatives of other law - related professions .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , and left the Court of Appeal decision unchanged . On the question of reputation , ORG noted its practice to the effect that no breach of law ( joks nusižengimas ) was too serious to unconditionally preclude an individual from ever asking to be reinstated to the Bar ( ORG referred to its earlier ruling in case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG then held that the expiry of a conviction for a minor intentional crime , as it was indicated in DATE ) of the PERSON on the Bar , was only one of the criteria when considering the question of a person ’s reputation . Moreover , LAW ) of that PERSON read that a person should meet the criteria of ethics applicable to advocates . Under point CARDINAL of the Code of Professional Ethics for Advocates , advocates were involved in the implementation of justice . The professional practice of an advocate required him or her to carry out his or her duties and obligations towards clients , the courts , the advocate ’s profession and society . Moreover , an advocate should never discredit the name of the profession , the oath he or she swore and the ideal of justice . On the facts of the applicant ’s case , ORG therefore had been correct in finding that the applicant had not proven that she had regained high moral character , in particular given the nature of the criminal acts she had committed .


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

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

All CARDINAL applicants were dismissed by their respective employers and subsequently brought separate civil claims against them , seeking reinstatement and/or pecuniary damages . They all obtained final court decisions in their favour , which remain unenforced to the present day . The debtor companies were registered as fully or predominantly socially / ORG - owned companies in the relevant public registers before and throughout the relevant insolvency / enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed by his employer , PERSON , a transport and transshipment company based in GPE ( currently registered as Socially - owned company ORG in liquidation ) ) . On DATE the applicant brought a civil action challenging that decision . He withdrew the request he had made for his outstanding salary on DATE . On DATE , ORG :

( a ) declared the employer ’s decision null and void ;

( b ) ordered the applicant ’s reinstatement within DATE , and

( c ) NORP awarded the applicant LAW on account of costs .

NORP ORG upheld the judgment on DATE . It became enforceable on DATE .

In the meantime , the debtor company appears to have been subject to insolvency proceedings before ORG DATE and DATE . On the latter date the insolvency proceedings were stayed ( obustavljen ) and the debtor continued its business activities .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for enforcement of the judgment of DATE and the payment of the outstanding salaries till his reinstatement , submitting amendments on DATE . It would appear that the court sent the request to the debtor for comment on CARDINAL DATE , but it has not been served on the debtor . Throughout DATE the applicant complained CARDINAL times to the enforcement court about its failure to issue an enforcement order . In his complaint of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant submitted that the debtor was an active company and , in that respect , provided a copy of the decision on staying of insolvency proceedings of DATE , certified by ORG .

On DATE the enforcement court rejected the applicant ’s request , incorrectly stating that the debtor was subject to pending insolvency proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant unsuccessfully appealed and wrote to the enforcement court again on numerous occasions .

NORP In the meantime , DATE and DATE , attempts at liquidation of the debtor failed , as there were not enough assets to settle all the LOC claims . Another set of insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor was opened on DATE , which appears to be still pending . The applicant registered his claim for costs within the insolvency proceedings . After a division of property , he received PERCENT of his claim for costs .

DATE the applicant was employed by ORG – ORG , a company based in ORG . She was placed by her employer on compulsory paid leave until such time as normal production could be resumed and the company ’s business performance had improved sufficiently . Whilst on leave , in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation , the applicant was entitled to a significantly reduced DATE income and payment of her pension , disability and other social security contributions .

In DATE many employees on compulsory leave were made redundant and took part in the ORG ’s “ social programme ” . After enquiring about her entitlements , on DATE the applicant was served with a decision dated CARDINAL DATE concerning her dismissal .

On DATE ORG declared the dismissal null and void and ordered her employer to :

( i ) reinstate her within DATE to a post which corresponded to her professional qualifications ;

( ii ) pay her the minimum salary arrears for the period CARDINAL DATE to DATE , together with statutory interest ;

( iii ) pay her pension and disability insurance contributions for DATE to DATE ; and

( iv ) pay LAW for her legal costs .

The judgment became final on DATE and ORG ordered its enforcement on DATE . In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was made redundant .

Following a claim by the applicant , on DATE ORG ordered her employer to pay her pension and disability insurance contributions for the period DATE to CARDINAL DATE and ORG CARDINAL for her legal costs , while rejecting her claim for her outstanding salary for the same period . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE . The enforcement courts rejected a request by the applicant for enforcement . On DATE ORG issued an instruction stating that enforcement proceedings should be initiated , and an enforcement order was adopted on DATE . The applicant was also awarded ORG CARDINAL for the enforcement costs . After a re - trial , on DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s employer to also pay her outstanding salary for DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( the period during which she was on paid leave ) and ORG CARDINAL for her legal costs . These proceedings are pending at domestic level .

On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the debtor . ORG and its subsidiary companies , including the debtor , have been in the process of being restructured since DATE . On DATE ORG opened preliminary insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . On DATE the restructuring of the debtor was terminated . It would appear that insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor were opened on DATE , and that the applicant ’s claim was allowed by ORG on DATE but has not yet been paid . The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing .

On DATE ORG accepted the settlement of a dispute between the applicant and his employer , ORG , a company based in ORG . The terms were as follows :

( a ) the dismissal of the applicant in DATE was to be declared null and void and the employer was to reinstate the applicant within DATE into a post which corresponded to his professional qualifications .

( b ) the employer was to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL on account of his outstanding salary arrears and corresponding social contributions for DATE to CARDINAL DATE , as well as the required court stamp duties .

The court ’s decision became final and enforceable on DATE .

ORG – Sopot Unit ( hereinafter “ the enforcement court ” ) issued an enforcement order on DATE . The applicant asked the court to expedite the enforcement proceedings on several occasions . On DATE and DATE the bailiff found no available movable assets to enforce the settlement . On CARDINAL DATE the court issued an enforcement order in respect of the debtor ’s immovable assets .

On DATE ORG opened preliminary insolvency proceedings , inviting the claimants to pay the deposit for the opening of the insolvency proceedings and register their claims . The call for the claimants was displayed on the court ’s notice board between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On DATE the court opened and terminated the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . The court ordered the debtor ’s liquidation as the latter had gone bankrupt , seemingly without having any legal successor , and none of the claimants had deposited costs of the proceedings or registered claims . The decision became final on DATE and was published . It said that any property of the debtor had become ORG assets .

On DATE that decision was registered ( zabeležba ) in the relevant public registers concerning the status of all companies and the debtor was struck off the relevant public registers . The date of its publication in ORG is not available on these registers .

On DATE the enforcement court suspended ( obustavio ) the enforcement proceedings as no available assets had been found .

On DATE the enforcement court terminated ( prekinuo ) the enforcement because of the debtor ’s liquidation .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his employer , ORG from ORG , to reinstate him , to pay him his outstanding salary arrears , to pay his corresponding pension and disability insurance contributions ( doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje ) and his legal costs .

The part of the judgment in respect of reinstatement and contributions became final on DATE and enforceable on DATE , while the ORG quashed the remaining part concerning his salary arrears .

On DATE ORG awarded the salary arrears for DATE , together with relating contributions and costs .

The enforcement courts ordered enforcement of the above judgments on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the ORG decided to give notice of the application to the Government .

On DATE ORG sent their observations on the admissibility and merits . By a letter of DATE the ORG ’s observations were forwarded to the applicant , who was invited to submit any written comments together with any claims for just satisfaction by DATE .

In the absence of any response , on CARDINAL DATE the Registry tried to make enquiries with the applicant about whether he was still interested in pursuing the case , but to no avail . By a registered letter dated DATE , he was notified that the periods allowed for appointment of a lawyer and for submission of his observations and claim for just satisfaction had both expired and that the ORG had extended the deadline for submissions until DATE . ORG also sent copies of the previous letters of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and enclosures . The applicant ’s attention was again drawn to LAW ( a ) of the LAW , which provides that the ORG may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application . The return receipt indicated that the applicant received the letter on DATE . However , no response has been received .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sergiy Goncharenko;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in Dzhankoy , GPE ( the “ ARC ” ) . At the time of lodging of his application , he indicated of being a NORP national . In DATE he informed the ORG that he had obtained NORP nationality in DATE .

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

PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , was unable to sit in the case ( Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . Accordingly , the President of ORG decided to appoint PERSON to sit as an ad hoc judge ( LAW ) .

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

By a judgment of DATE , a certain PERSON was sentenced to CARDINAL and a half years’ imprisonment suspended for CARDINAL years’ probation . In DATE PERSON failed to appear before the probation officer for his DATE registration allegedly for medical reasons , including hospitalisation .

On DATE the applicant , a probation officer , represented ORG in judicial proceedings against PERSON concerning replacement of PERSON ’s probation with imprisonment due to the latter ’s failure to comply with the probation requirements . The court adjourned the proceedings until DATE , having requested PERSON to submit documents confirming his hospitalisation .

On DATE PERSON gave a statement to ORG of Dzhankoy . He submitted that after the court hearing of DATE the applicant had summoned him to his office on DATE . When he had arrived , the applicant informed him that the judge and the prosecutor were intending to replace his probation with imprisonment but that the applicant could settle the matter in his favour for MONEY ( ORG ) . PERSON signed the aforementioned statement and confirmed that he was aware that knowingly reporting false information about a crime was a criminal offence .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , prosecutor PERSON decided to institute a preliminary inquiry under LAW of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) and assigned the task to economic crime detectives PERSON and PERSON . from ORG . At TIME the detectives examined CARDINAL ORG notes provided by PERSON which they had marked with special luminescent fluid ( lumiphore ) and which PERSON then put in his pocket . This action was documented in a record of the application of special chemical substances ( PERSON применения специальных химических веществ ) and was signed by the participants and CARDINAL attesting witnesses . According to later submissions by some of those present , PERSON also had a dictaphone attached to his clothing .

At TIME on DATE PERSON entered the applicant ’s office and emerged TIME , indicating to the detectives and prosecutor PERSON that he had given the banknotes to the applicant , whereupon they also entered the applicant ’s office . According to the crime scene inspection report ( PERSON осмотра места происшествия ) drawn up by the prosecutor , between TIME and TIME the prosecutor and police officers conducted a search of the applicant ’s office . They recorded that during the search the applicant was asked by the police officers whether he had received any money . He replied in the negative . The police officers then checked the applicant ’s hands with a special device and found traces of lumiphore on his right hand . They looked in an open safe situated near the applicant ’s desk and found the CARDINAL marked banknotes inside . It was also noted in the report that the search had been audio - recorded .

The applicant was arrested that DATE .

On DATE the applicant was charged with soliciting and receiving a bribe .

On DATE the applicant was released .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his post of probation officer .

On DATE the Dhzankoy District Court ( “ the ORG ” ) examined the applicant ’s case and referred it to ORG for further investigation . The court ordered that during the further investigation the banknotes which had been used for the bribe should be located and checked for the applicant ’s fingerprints , and that the audio - recording of the bribe - taking , and documents proving that that operation had been lawful must be produced .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) quashed the ruling of DATE , finding that the requirements laid down by the first - instance court were irrelevant or unnecessary . It observed in particular that the banknotes had been treated with chemicals and examined by forensic experts , that the probability of finding fingerprints on them was therefore low and that it was for this reason that the corresponding examination had not been conducted . The court also noted that there was no evidence either in the case - file or the bill of indictment that an audio - recording had been made , and the first - instance court judge had failed to indicate on what basis he had concluded that such an audio - recording of the bribe handover had in fact been made .

By a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . The court noted that the applicant denied the accusations , claiming that after the postponement of the hearings in the case of PERSON , the latter had approached him on several occasions to ask about the case . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON had come to his office , they had shaken hands and PERSON had started asking him again about his probation . After PERSON had left the office , the police officers had come in and had found MONEY in his safe . The applicant claimed that he knew nothing about the money and had never solicited or taken any bribe from PERSON argued that PERSON could have put the money in his safe without his knowledge and that the traces of lumiphore on his hand could have been caused by shaking hands with PERSON The court also examined the evidence presented by the police and found that the operation had been conducted in breach of criminal procedure . It held , in particular , that the operation had been instigated on the basis of unverified allegations made by PERSON and without an order to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant , and also that certain investigative techniques ( special chemicals and audio - recording ) had been used without an operational file having been opened , contrary to section CARDINAL of the Search and Seizure Activities Act . The court further noted that the prosecution had lost the audio - recording of the conversation between PERSON and the applicant , which constituted an important item of evidence that could have confirmed or refuted PERSON ’s allegations that the applicant had extorted money from him . Although the prosecutor denied the use of audio - recording during the operation , PERSON and CARDINAL of the police officers confirmed that a dictaphone had been used during the operation . The court also observed that the expert opinion stated that the marked banknotes could in fact have been checked for the applicant ’s fingerprints but this had not been done and the banknotes had been lost . The traces of the chemical on the applicant ’s hand did not in itself constitute conclusive evidence that he had taken money from PERSON court also noted that during the trial prosecutor PERSON had claimed that the operation had been headed by police inspector I. , whereas the latter stated that they were merely assisting the prosecutor to verify the notification of a crime . The court also doubted the testimony given by PERSON in the light of an earlier promise to take revenge , which was confirmed in the court by CARDINAL of the applicant ’s colleagues . For all these reasons the court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution had either been unlawfully obtained or was too inconclusive to establish that the applicant had solicited or received a bribe from PERSON

The prosecutor appealed . In the applicant ’s reply to the appeal he stated that the audio - recording made during the operation contained evidence of his innocence and had been withheld from the case file for this reason , and that prosecuting investigator PERSON had not investigated the real intention behind PERSON ’s complaint , namely to slander the applicant and evade imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the earlier judgment , found the applicant guilty of bribery , sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment together with confiscation of all his property and detained him pending appeal . The court considered that the fact that the applicant had solicited a bribe from PERSON was proved by the consistent and logical statements given by the latter . It noted that the applicant had failed to check the validity of the reasons for PERSON ’s non - compliance with the probation requirements . In the latter aspect , it referred to CARDINAL decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE in favour of PERSON The court also relied on the evidence provided by the records of the use of the special chemical , of the discovery of the marked banknotes in the safe , of the discovery of traces of special chemicals on CARDINAL of the applicant ’s hands , of an event reconstruction proving that PERSON could not have put the money in the safe without the applicant having noticed it , of the finding of traces of the special chemical on the applicant ’s hand and a forensic examination finding a similarity between the chemical on the applicant ’s hand and that on the marked banknotes . The court held that ORG had examined the evidence thoroughly but had assessed it incorrectly . Referring to the statement by police officer I. that no operational file had been opened because this had been a preliminary inquiry within the meaning of Section CARDINAL of the ORG , it concluded that the evidence obtained in the course of the operation had been obtained in compliance with criminal procedure .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law challenging the admissibility of the evidence against him . Over and above the findings of the trial court he argued that the operation had not been authorised by any court , contrary to LAW ORG and section CARDINAL of the Search and Seizure Activities Act , and that the operation conducted by the authorities on CARDINAL DATE had assisted the provocation of a bribe rather than examining the truthfulness of PERSON ’s allegations and preventing the crime .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the court of appeal but reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE imprisonment . The court noted that the applicant ’s guilt had been proved by the consistent testimonies of PERSON who had no reason for making false accusations against the applicant . It concluded that there had been sufficient direct and indirect proof that the applicant had not only taken the bribe but had solicited it too .

NORP The applicant was released from prison on DATE .

Article CARDINAL

“ [ ... ] An accusation shall not be based on illegally obtained evidence or on assumptions . All doubts with regard to the proof of a person ’s guilt are to be interpreted in his or her favour . ”

Article CARDINAL

Taking a bribe

NORP The taking of a bribe of any kind , by an official , in return for taking or refraining from any action for the benefit of the person offering the bribe or for the benefit of any third person by means of the authority or official powers entrusted in this official , shall be punishable by a fine of CARDINAL tax - free minimum incomes , or imprisonment for a term of DATE , with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of DATE .

NORP The taking of a substantial bribe by an official who occupies a responsible position , or by a group of persons following prior conspiracy , or if repeated or accompanied by solicitations for such a bribe , shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE along with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term up to DATE and confiscation of property ...

Article CARDINAL

Offering a bribe

NORP The offering of a bribe shall be punishable by a fine of CARDINAL tax - free minimum incomes , or restraint of liberty for a term of DATE .

A person who offers a bribe shall be discharged from criminal liability if the bribe was solicited from this person and if this person , after offering the bribe and before any criminal prosecution was initiated against him / her , voluntarily reported the act of bribery to the agency competent to undertake criminal prosecution .

Article CARDINAL

Provocation of bribery

The provocation of bribery , that is to say the intentional creation , by an official , of circumstances and conditions that provoke the offering or taking of a bribe for the purpose of implicating those who offered or took it , shall be punishable by restraint of liberty for a term DATE , or imprisonment for a term of DATE .

The same act committed by a law enforcement official shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE .

Article CARDINAL

Obligation to accept statements and notifications about crimes and the procedure for their examination

“ ... If the need arises to check a statement or notification about a crime prior to the opening of a [ criminal ] case , such check shall be conducted by a prosecutor , an investigator , or a panel of inquiry within DATE by taking explanations from particular individuals or officials or by requesting the necessary documents .

A statement or notification about a crime prior to the opening of a criminal case may be verified by means of search and seizure activities . Certain search and seizure activities , determined by the legislative acts of GPE , shall be conducted with the court ’s authorisation on the basis of a request to be submitted by the head or deputy head of the respective operative unit and approved by a prosecutor ... ”

Section CARDINAL of the Act lays down a range of investigative techniques that constitute the search and seizure activities that may be conducted by the law enforcement bodies . It also requires that any covert entering of a home or other individual property , interception of communications , monitoring of correspondence and telephone conversations and application of other technical means for obtaining information , must be undertaken at the request of the head or deputy of the operative unit and authorised by a court decision . Any application of technical means for obtaining information must be documented and may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW requires that search and seizure activities be carried out only after an operational file ( оперативно-розшукова справа ) has been opened , and prohibits these activities without the existence of such a file .

“ ... DATE . Evidence shall be deemed to have been obtained illegally if it has been obtained and processed either in breach of individual and citizen ’s rights guaranteed by LAW , or of legislation on criminal procedure , or by persons and bodies or through means not authorised by the relevant procedural norms . ”