Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

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

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

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

NORP In TIME of DATE at TIME the applicant , who had just returned home from a party , started arguing with his wife and CARDINAL - year - old son . Fearing that the applicant might become physically violent , his wife , ORG , called the police .

Officer PERSON from the local police , accompanied by NORP , TIME at the local mayor ’s office , arrived shortly afterwards at the applicant ’s house and entered the yard after being invited in by ORG , who complained that the applicant , who was drunk , was swearing and throwing stones . They found the applicant outside , in his underwear , in an agitated state . C.V. tried to talk to him in order to settle the dispute . After the applicant calmed down , ORG asked the policeman not to leave , so that she could collect some personal things in order to leave the house with her son . According to ORG , at that very moment the applicant became agitated again and tried to hit his son . When PERSON stepped between them , the applicant started swearing at him , hit him in the face and then appeared to lean over to pick something up from the ground . At that point PERSON , with the help of NORP , pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him . The applicant ’s glasses were broken in the incident .

The applicant was then taken in the police car to NORP police station , where he was held for TIME , until his wife and son arrived . He was then told he was free to leave , and walked the QUANTITY journey back home in his underwear .

In the meantime , officer ORG had drafted an event report describing the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant ’s wife and son had signed the report as witnesses , stating in their own handwriting that “ the facts mentioned in the present report are true ” .

NORP In addition , ORG had drafted an offence report , fining the applicant CARDINAL lei for disturbing public order . The report stated that the applicant had shouted vulgar words and insults addressed to both his wife and the police officer , both at his house and once at the police station .

TIME the applicant went to see a doctor and obtained a forensic medical certificate stating that he had a QUANTITY excoriation on the left knee with swelling and functional immobility , CARDINAL excoriations measuring QUANTITY on the right knee , and a QUANTITY and CARDINAL smaller ecchymoses ( bruises ) , with swelling , on the left hand . The doctor also mentioned that the applicant had complained of pain in the lumbar area , so he had recommended him an orthopaedic examination , which he had refused . His injuries were considered to require CARDINAL to CARDINAL days’ medical care .

The applicant contested the offence report drafted by ORG at the time of the incident . He alleged that there were personal reasons connected to his wife and son which had provoked his behaviour that night ; PERSON had abused his authority by not taking them into consideration and by handcuffing him and taking him to the police station .

On DATE ORG held that the offence report drafted by PERSON was corroborated by the event report signed by the applicant ’s wife and son . It was therefore in accordance with the law and presented the facts correctly . The court also took into account the fact that when asked to sign the offence report , the applicant , who refused to do so , did not make any objections concerning the facts as presented by ORG ; however , in view of the personal circumstances referred to by him , the court decided to replace the fine with a warning .

This judgment became final as the parties did not appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint concerning the incident with the prosecutor ’s office of ORG . He alleged that on DATE he had not at all been violent . He had just been upset because his wife and son were constantly taking advantage of him and spending his money . The applicant considered that the police officer had only intervened that night to help ORG take things from the family home . He further complained that he had been pushed to the ground by the officer and night guard , in spite of the fact that he was old and suffering from diabetes . He also claimed that his glasses had been broken in the incident . Lastly , he requested that the truth be uncovered .

On DATE statements from all the parties involved in the incident , including the applicant , were taken by the investigating authorities . ORG declared that she had been inside the house to collect some personal things and had not seen what had happened in the moments before the applicant had been pushed to the ground and handcuffed . The applicant ’s son also declared that he could not see the incident as he had been busy taking things to his car . He also stated that he had offered to take the applicant home in his car on their return from the police station that night , but he had refused . A witness statement was also taken from TIME guard who had been patrolling the field across from the applicant ’s house . He declared that he had heard an argument that TIME between the applicant and his family . When the police had arrived , he had heard the applicant swearing at the police officer and had subsequently seen him resisting getting into the police car .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office decided not to charge C.V. At first , the prosecutor classified the applicant ’s complaint as a complaint of abusive conduct against C.V. Subsequently , the prosecutor held that ORG had been invited into the applicant ’s yard by his wife , who had requested protection , and that the officer had acted in conformity with PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which allows for anyone disturbing public order to be taken to a police station , and also allows the use of force in the event of any resistance on their part . In addition , the police officer acted in accordance with the same PERSON also when he requested support from C.A.C , who therefore was entitled to take part in the operation .

The applicant ’s complaint about this decision was rejected as ill - founded on DATE by the deputy prosecutor of the same prosecutor ’s office .

The applicant contested the ORG decisions before ORG . The applicant maintained to the court that there was no proof that he had been violent ; the police officer had therefore acted unlawfully . He also highlighted the fact that he had been taken to the police station and then left to return home in his underwear . With respect to the investigation , he complained that he had neither been heard by the prosecutor nor confronted with the CARDINAL alleged perpetrators , stressing that he had also lodged complaints against NORP , as well as both perpetrators , about the destruction of his glasses .

On DATE the ORG decided to send the case back to the prosecutor ’s office , because the applicant ’s complaint about the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE had been solved by the deputy prosecutor and not the head prosecutor , as required by law .

On DATE the head prosecutor rejected the applicant ’s complaint about the decision of CARDINAL DATE as ill - founded .

The applicant complained again to ORG about the ORG decisions . He attached statements from his wife and son declaring that they did not know what they had signed at the NORP police station on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint as ill - founded . The applicant ’s wife and son made statements to the court that on DATE “ the applicant was drunk and had an uncontrolled outburst ” but had not been aggressive towards the police officer , who had reacted in an unjustified manner . The court decided not to take these statements into consideration since the CARDINAL of them had mentioned , at the time of the incident , in their own handwriting , that the facts as described in the event report were true . The court further held in reply to the applicant ’s allegations concerning the investigation that the initial complaint he had lodged was not clearly formulated ; the prosecutor had therefore correctly classified it as a complaint of abusive conduct against the police officer who had conducted the operation on DATE . Lastly , the court concluded that ORG had acted in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the organisation and functioning of the police in order to restrain the applicant , who had been aggressive towards his family and the police officer .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) brought by the applicant against this judgment as ill - founded .

The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing throughout the entire proceedings before the domestic courts .

The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the time with regard to ill - treatment and abusive behaviour are summarised in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

NORP The relevant provisions of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the organisation and functioning of the police , in force at the relevant time , are as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In the exercise of their duties , police officers are trustees of public authority and have the following rights and obligations :

b ) to accompany to the police station those who pose a danger to others , public order or other social values ... ; in cases of non - compliance with [ their ] orders , [ the police ] are authorised to use force ...

k ) to request if needed , the help of citizens in order to track , catch , restrain and accompany to the police station those suspected of committing crimes ... ”


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG .

On DATE at TIME , a member of the NORP army , exploded a grenade in a pizza parlour in GPE , as a result of which ORG and CARDINAL other person died and the second applicant was gravely injured . The first applicant , who worked in a nearby flower shop , came to the scene and found the second applicant lying on the floor , covered in blood .

An on - site inspection of the crime scene was carried out on TIME by the military police and it was videotaped . The report drawn up by them indicates that ORG was dressed in civilian clothes . During the enquiry the military police took statements from witnesses and on DATE sent a report on the incident to the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG . The relevant part of the report reads :

“ On DATE at TIME at the ORG pizza parlour ... soldier PERSON was consuming alcoholic beverages at the bar in the company of ORG . , ORG ( an employee of the judicial police ) and GPE when all at once [ D.M. ] took an M-CARDINAL hand grenade out of his pocket and pulled out the safety clip and placed the grenade into the hand of waitress PERSON , ... who put it on the counter saying ‘ What would I need this for?’ , whereupon D.[M. ] , seeing that the grenade had been activated , took it in his right hand and turned sideways from the counter , after which an explosion occurred . [ FAC ] was killed on the spot , while PERSON . and PERSON ... sustained grievous bodily injuries and GPE ... minor bodily injuries . ... The injured were transferred to GPE and GPE . died during transport . ”

No further investigation ensued .

On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG . The second applicant sought damages in connection with the life - threatening injuries he had sustained in the incident of DATE , while the first applicant sought damages on account of the stress and fear she had suffered because of the event in question . The applicants argued that ORG had been on duty at the time when he had exploded the grenade , that he had been dressed in his military uniform and that his mother had obtained a survivor ’s pension after his death under a decision which stated that he had died on duty ( specifically , “ at work ” ) .

During the proceedings it was established that the second applicant had sustained numerous injuries to his head , face , chest , belly and lower extremities and that he was suffering from permanent consequences , such as frequent headaches , pain throughout his body , impaired hearing , double vision , fatigue and incapacity for work .

Their claim was allowed on DATE . That judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE . The first - instance court again allowed the claim on DATE . However , on DATE ORG , after an appeal lodged by the defendant , overturned the judgment and dismissed the applicants’ claim . The relevant part of that judgment reads :

“ The first - instance court established the following :

- ORG was a member of the NORP army – a military serviceman ;

- ORG used an GPE grenade , which served a military purpose and was registered for [ use by ] the members of the NORP army ;

- the decision of CARDINAL DATE ... issued by ORG stated that the mother of ORG , who had been a NORP Homeland War veteran , obtained the right to a survivor ’s pension because [ ORG ] had been [ serving in the ] military when he had caused the damage , and the reasoning of that decision stated that he had died because of an injury sustained at work ;

- ORG had not been on duty .

On the basis of the thus - established facts the first - instance court concluded that the defendant was liable because the said decision of ORG stated that the death of [ ORG ] , as an active military serviceman , had occurred while [ he had been ] carrying out his official duties ...

The first - instance court also concluded that there had been a failure on the part of the defendant [ to carry out a weapons ] check under section CARDINAL of the Instruction on the Allocation , Distribution , Carrying and Use of Official Short Weapons . Had the correct check ( for which the military police were responsible under section CARDINAL of the above - mentioned Instruction ) [ been exercised in respect of ] the carrying of weapons DATE namely the grenade [ held by ORG ] without a proper licence or an identity document , DATE and the grenade been taken [ from ORG ] , the damage most likely would not have occurred .

However , this court considers that these facts , as established [ by the first - instance court ] , do not serve as a sufficient basis for concluding that the requirements for the defendant to be held liable for the concrete damage have been met .

First of all , ORG ’s GPE right to obtain a survivor ’s pension on the basis of a decision of ORG is not decisive for the defendant ’s liability for damage since the right to a survivor ’s pension was obtained on the basis of ORG ’s status as a NORP Homeland War DATE that is to say an insured military person . The fact that the reasoning of that decision ... states that the ‘ insured party ’s death occurred because of an injury sustained at work’ is not relevant for an assessment of the defendant ’s liability in these civil proceedings .

An assessment of the facts shows that ORG was not on duty on the critical evening ; that the GPE grenade was not given to him by his military unit ( [ according to ] a letter from ORG of CARDINAL DATE ) ; that the record of the on - site inspection carried out on DATE of [ ORG ’s ] death does not show that FAC was wearing a uniform ; and that nothing proved that the grenade in question was the property of the defendant ( that ORG had unlawfully obtained the grenade from the defendant ) , regardless of the fact that such a grenade serves a military purpose and is registered for [ use by ] members of the NORP army ; [ therefore , ] this court finds that the conclusion of the first - instance court regarding ... the liability of the defendant is not correct .

Lastly , this court considers ... in respect of the failure of the defendant to carry out a check on the carrying of weapons and to seize [ weapons ] where there is no licence [ to carry them ] , as the basis of the defendant ’s liability , that there is no proof ... that the military police had a duty to carry out a check in the pizza parlour in question on the critical TIME or that the competent authorities knew that ORG possessed a grenade and failed to seize it from him . Therefore , this court finds that the requirements for the defendant ’s liability are not met ... ”

NORP The applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaint of DATE was dismissed on DATE . This decision was served on the applicants on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants are a married couple . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE penitentiary no . CARDINAL . The second applicant lives in ORG .

At the time of the events the applicants lived in a CARDINAL - room apartment together with PERSON , the second applicant ’s mother .

PERSON had a pending judicial dispute with a certain Mr L. regarding the inheritance of a house . The applicants , being interested in improving their living conditions , provided her with various support in those proceedings .

NORP In DATE the first applicant visited Mr L. with a view to dissuading him from pursuing the mentioned dispute .

On DATE Mr L. was found dead in his house . His throat was cut and there were multiple stabs and cuts on his body . CARDINAL of the windows was broken , and there was a hoe lying nearby on the floor .

On DATE a criminal investigation was opened into the murder .

At TIME on that same day the applicants came home where several police officers were waiting for them . The applicants were taken to GPE ( ORG районний відділ ORG міського управління Головного управління внутрішніх справ ORG Харківській області ) . According to the applicants , this was done under the pretext that they needed to be questioned in respect of the first applicant ’s debt vis - à - vis some third persons . As submitted by the Government , the police apprehended the applicants on suspicion of the murder of Mr L.

The applicants were questioned regarding their whereabouts and actions on CARDINAL and DATE . They stated that they had been together shopping , going to the cinema , having meals and so on .

Both applicants were held in the police station during TIME on DATE . They stated in their submissions to the ORG that they had not been subjected to any ill - treatment at that stage .

On DATE the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination . According to its report , which was completed on DATE , the examination revealed multiple bruises and sores on virtually all the body of the first applicant . They included CARDINAL multidirectional sores on his back and about the same number of sores on his hips , buttocks and knees . The expert gave the following possible dates of the injuries : a bruise on the left shoulder and a sore on the torso – between CARDINAL and DATE ; bruises on the right part of the torso DATE between CARDINAL and DATE ; sores on the torso , the back and the legs – between CARDINAL and DATE . Those sores were assessed as having possibly originated from the impact of some protruded blunt objects , such as glass fragments .

According to the first applicant , he sustained the injuries discovered on DATE , having accidentally fallen a day before .

The first applicant submitted the following account of the subsequent events . After the aforementioned examination , he was taken to the criminal investigation department , where CARDINAL of the officers suggested that he should confess to the murder of PERSON As the first applicant refused to do so , some officers brought in a dirty mattress and a gas mask . They put wet cloths around his wrists and handcuffed him . CARDINAL of the officers punched him in the solar plexus and pushed him on the mattress . The others twisted his arms behind his back and made him split his legs while beating him to his torso and genitals . The gas mask was then put on the first applicant ’s face and the vent was blocked . He fainted several times and was made regain consciousness with cold water . The gas mask was repeatedly put on his face , and he was made inhale cigarette smoke . At the same time , his genitals were being twisted . The first applicant ’s ill - treatment continued as described above in several rounds . The officers threated him that they would bring his wife and do the same with her in front of him . He then signed a confession to the murder of Mr L. He had , however , to adjust it many times as dictated by the police . The first applicant was made memorise his confession .

The Government maintained that the first applicant had not been subjected to any ill - treatment .

According to the detention logbook of the police station , the first applicant was detained at TIME on DATE as a criminal suspect .

On DATE , DATE , the investigator appointed a lawyer , Mr M. , for the first applicant . He maintained his initial confession during his questioning in the presence of the lawyer . According to the first applicant , he did so fearing further ill - treatment and not having the possibility to talk with the lawyer in private prior to the questioning .

As regards the second applicant , in TIME on DATE she was taken from the police station to her home , where a search was conducted . The police allegedly threatened her that if she did not testify against her husband , they would accuse her of a drug - related offence having previously planted drugs in her apartment .

Thereafter the second applicant was taken back to the police station , where she made a statement , allegedly under coercion , that her husband had admitted to her having murdered Mr L. More specifically , the second applicant submitted that CARDINAL police officers had hit her several times on the head and had pulled her by the hair .

On DATE a reconstruction of the crime was conducted in the presence of the first applicant ’s lawyer , during which the first applicant confessed again to the incriminated crime . TIME later he , however , retracted his confession as made under duress and complained of his ill - treatment by the police . According to the first applicant , he did so after his first confidential conversation with his lawyer , which had taken place only after the aforementioned event . His lawyer subsequently stated that he had had his first confidential meeting with the first applicant prior to the latter ’s questioning on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the investigator submitted for approval to the Frunzenskyy ORG ( “ the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor ’s Office ” ) an application for the first applicant ’s pre - trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial . The prosecutor decided to question the first applicant himself before taking a decision . He saw that the first applicant had multiple injuries and concluded that his confession had been extracted by force . Furthermore , the prosecutor noted a number of discrepancies between the confessions of the first applicant and the autopsy report in respect of the victim . The second applicant was questioned too . She submitted that she had incriminated her husband under duress .

As a result , the prosecutor refused to approve the investigator ’s application , quashed the latter ’s decision on bringing the charges against the first applicant and released him . The prosecutor also directed his subordinates to question both applicants about their ill - treatment in police custody and to duly report their submissions .

While the applicants were making written statements in the office of the deputy prosecutor , at TIME , CARDINAL officers of the Frunzenskyy ORG , namely , the first deputy head of the department ( перший заступник начальника райвідділу ) PERSON ( see also paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below for additional information about this police officer ) , the head of the criminal investigation department ( начальник сектору карного розшуку ) Mr Pap . , his deputy ( заступник начальника карного розшуку ) Mr ORG . , and the chief of the investigation unit ( начальник слідчого відділу ) PERSON , broke in . Disregarding the objections of the deputy prosecutor and constraining him by force , they took the applicants out . There were more police officers waiting in the corridor .

The applicants were handcuffed and taken to ORG , located near the prosecutor ’s office . On the way , one of the officers allegedly hit the first applicant in the right hip .

The first applicant was taken to an office on the ground floor where he was made sit quiet with one of the police officers . The office was locked from inside , and the light was switched off . TIME , he was taken to another office where the bars on the window could be removed . He was made write a note that he had left the police station at TIME The first applicant was then taken outside through the window behind the building of the police station . The police officers placed him a car , parked that car in a nearby yard and waited there till TIME It is not known what happened thereafter . It appears that the first applicant remained detained ( see , in particular , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

After the police had taken the applicants from the prosecutor ’s office , at TIME the deputy prosecutor visited the ORG . According to the GPE logbook , the applicants had entered the building at TIME and had been remaining there . Having searched the LOC , the prosecution officials found the second applicant in tears in CARDINAL of the offices . The first applicant could not be found . Police officer PERSON submitted to the prosecutor a note on behalf of the first applicant , but without his signature , that he had left the police department at CARDINAL p.m. The prosecution officers went to the applicants’ home , but the first applicant was not there .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the prosecution authorities that he had been ill - treated by the police ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It appears that the second applicant raised a similar complaint too .

On DATE the Frunzenskyy ORG opened a criminal case against the police officers PERSON , Pap . and ORG . under LAW ( exceeding power by engaging in the violent or degrading treatment of a victim ) in respect of the events of the evening of DATE and the night from DATE .

On DATE the applicants were assigned victim status and questioned . Also on DATE the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination , after which he was released .

On DATE a report of the first applicant ’s examination was delivered . It documented multiple bruises on his shoulders , torso , back , chest , arms , hips , thighs and legs . Their colouring varied from yellowish to violet and purple . The first applicant also had crust - covered sores and bruises on both wrists . The expert concluded that most of the injuries had originated from the impact of blunt objects DATE . CARDINAL bruise on the first applicant ’s back below the left shoulder blade was assessed as sustained DATE and DATE . Lastly , according to the report , some sores on the right forearm , the left elbow and the right ankle had been inflicted on the first applicant on DATE .

On DATE the second applicant underwent a medical examination too , which did not reveal any injuries . According to the second applicant , she complained to the expert that she had headaches and was advised to apply for help to a hospital .

On DATE she was examined by a neurosurgeon in the local hospital who reported that she had bruises of the head soft tissues .

On DATE the applicants were questioned in respect of their alleged ill - treatment by the police . They recognised the officers PERSON , Pap . and ORG . at the photos shown to them .

On DATE and DATE a reconstruction of the events of DATE and DATE was conducted with the applicants’ participation .

On an unspecified date ORG directed the management of the police department to establish the whereabouts of the officers PERSON , Pap . and ORG . , who had not complied with the prosecutor ’s summonses .

On DATE the Chief of ORG wrote to the prosecutor that all those CARDINAL officers were on sick leave and that their whereabouts were being established .

On DATE the police officers PERSON , Pap . and ORG . were questioned in respect of the alleged ill - treatment of the applicants . PERSON and Pap . refused making any statements . It is not known what ORG . stated .

NORP On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal investigation in respect of the aforementioned police officers , having concluded that the wrongdoings imputed to them were to be qualified as interference with the activity of a law - enforcement official ( the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor ) rather than exceeding power by engaging in the violent or degrading treatment of a victim . Accordingly , a different criminal case was opened , with a new charge .

On an unspecified date in DATE PERSON , Pap . and ORG . were questioned again . They denied any ill - treatment of the applicants . As to their behaviour on DATE , they submitted that they had believed that the applicants had posed a danger to the deputy prosecutor .

On DATE the prosecutor , who had been involved in the events of DATE , gave detailed statements regarding those events , when questioned as a witness in the framework of the criminal investigation against the police officers .

DATE the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination with a view to establishing the origin of his injuries documented earlier .

On DATE the examination report was completed . It reiterated the findings of the first applicant ’s examinations of CARDINAL June and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE and DATE above ) . Furthermore , it noted that the sores on the first applicant ’s wrists could have been caused by his handcuffing . The report stated that the findings of the earlier examinations did not contradict the other materials in the case file .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill - treatment , for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers . The prosecutor noted a contradiction in the first applicant ’s submissions , according to which his only injury as of DATE had been a bruise on his right hip from an accidental falling DATE , and the forensic medical examination report of DATE , which had established many others injuries . The expert who had examined the first applicant on DATE and DATE , had stated during his questioning by the prosecutor that the injuries sustained by the first applicant after DATE , were located in the body parts accessible for self - infliction , apart from the bruise below the left shoulder blade . It appeared impossible to establish the origin of that bruise . The expert had also noted that no injuries on the first applicant ’s genitals had been revealed . Overall , the prosecutor concluded that those few injuries which were dated DATE “ could have been sustained [ by the first applicant ] in circumstances unrelated to any use of force by the police against him ” . It was also noted in the ruling that the first applicant had never raised any complaints before the medical personnel of the detention facility . Lastly , as regards the allegations of the second applicant that she had been ill - treated by the police , the prosecutor noted that her medical examination of DATE had not revealed any injuries . In sum , the ill - treatment allegations of both applicants were found to be without basis .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the above decision and directed the prosecution authorities to carry out an additional investigation . It noted , in particular , that the contradictions between the first applicant ’s submissions that he had had no injuries as of DATE and the forensic medical examination report of that date , according to which he had had numerous injuries , had to be clarified .

On DATE a reconstruction of the events of DATE and CARDINAL DATE was conducted with the participation of the first applicant . He maintained the allegations of his ill - treatment by the police .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE a forensic medical expert examined the available documents in respect of the first applicant with a view to clarifying the origin of his injuries . The case file does not contain a copy of the respective report . It appears that , according to the expert ’s conclusions , only some of the first applicant ’s injuries could have originated in the circumstances as described by him .

DATE . On DATE ORG once again terminated the investigation initiated on DATE for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers concerned . The prosecutor noted that , even though the first applicant had sustained some injuries while in detention , the exact time and circumstances of their infliction remained unknown . Furthermore , the location of some of the injuries allowed to presume that they could have been self - inflicted . The prosecutor also noted that the first applicant had not “ personalised ” his injuries : in other words , that he had not specified who exactly of the police officers had inflicted each specific injury on him . The investigator had also questioned the forensic expert who had conducted the examination of the first applicant on DATE who had confirmed her findings .

On DATE , DATE , ORG delivered CARDINAL additional rulings refusing to open a criminal case following the complaints of ill - treatment by each of the applicants .

On DATE ORG , acting as a court of first instance in the first applicant ’s trial , ordered ORG to investigate the first applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment by the police . It noted that , according to the first applicant , the presence of his fingerprint on the hoe seized at the crime scene was explained by the fact that the police officers had put that hoe in his hands by force during his ill - treatment .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Frunzenskyy ORG , to which the investigation was re - assigned , refused to open a criminal case against the police , having mainly relied on the respective rulings of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . All those decisions were , however , quashed as premature .

On CARDINAL DATE the Frunzenskyy ORG again refused to open a criminal case against the police officers allegedly involved in the applicants’ ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant by an expert panel with a view to clarifying his injuries and the possible circumstances of their infliction . The investigator noted that similar examinations , which had been carried out earlier , were inconsistent in their conclusions .

On DATE a panel of experts issued a forensic medical examination report , in which they stated , in particular , that the first applicant might have sustained all the injuries ( with the exception of CARDINAL bruises and one sore ) at the time and under the circumstances as indicated by him during the reconstruction of the events conducted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG , which was apparently investigating the matter in parallel , refused to open a criminal case against the police officers too . On DATE it terminated , on similar grounds as earlier , the criminal investigation initiated on DATE . On DATE the ORG quashed both aforementioned rulings as based on an incomplete and CARDINAL - sided investigation .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG refused to open a criminal case against the police officers in respect of the second applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . On DATE it discontinued the criminal investigation against the police officers in respect of the first applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment , which had been launched on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The first applicant unsuccessfully challenged the aforementioned decision before the domestic courts .

On DATE the first applicant was committed for trial .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , sitting as a court of first instance , remitted the case for additional investigation . It noted , in particular , that the first applicant ’s initial confession could not be relied on because he had later retracted it as obtained under duress and given that his ill - treatment complaint had not been duly investigated . The court also indicated a number of contradictions between the first applicant ’s confessions and the case - file materials .

On an unspecified date the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the trial court again .

On DATE ORG found the first applicant guilty of murder for profit and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property . It relied , in particular , on the first applicant ’s initial confessions , which he had later retracted . Furthermore , the court referred to certain material evidence inculpating the first applicant ( such as the hoe with his fingerprint found at the scene of the crime , and his shorts with a blood stain possibly originating from the victim ) . His allegations that he had been ill - treated and that the evidence against him had been fabricated were dismissed as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG quashed the above judgment mainly on the ground that LAW and the ORG ’s case - law required a proper investigation of the first applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment , which had not been done . ORG also remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh examination .

On DATE ORG once again found the first applicant guilty of murder for profit and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property . The court relied , inter alia , on his confessions made on DATE and further reiterated on DATE in the presence of his lawyer ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It was noted in the judgment that the first applicant ’s lawyer , who had represented him on the aforementioned dates , had been questioned and had stated that he had had a confidential conversation with the first applicant prior to the first questioning and that there had been no violations of the criminal procedure .

As regards the first applicant ’s allegation that he had been ill - treated on DATE , the court noted that the prosecution authorities had thoroughly investigated the matter and had decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned . ORG referred in this connection to the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the same time , having regard to the ill - treatment allegation on the part of the second applicant , which was still under investigation , ORG decided not to rely on her statements incriminating the first applicant , which she had made during the pre - trial investigation .

In so far as the first applicant complained of his kidnapping by the police from the prosecutor ’s office on DATE , the trial court noted that the investigation was ongoing and that it was not necessary to wait for its outcome for the pronouncement of the judgment .

DATE . The first applicant challenged the judgment on points of law . He submitted , in particular , that that there was no solid evidence proving his guilt and that the trial court had wrongly relied on his self - incriminating statements obtained under duress , without any adequate investigation of his ill - treatment complaint . He referred in this connection to the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . ORG , DATE ) , which concerned that applicant ’s torture by PERSON , the same police officer who was involved in the alleged ill - treatment of the applicants in the present case .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court and its reasoning .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (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 - Torture) (Substantive aspect)

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

On DATE police officers apprehended the applicant ’s son and his friend , PERSON and took them to ORG of the Interior of GPE ( ORG по PERSON г. ORG ) . No record of their arrest was drawn up .

For TIME the applicant ’s son was ill - treated by police officers He was repeatedly punched in the stomach and hit to the head , right palm and both calves . He was also subjected to the so - called “ swallow ” method of torture ( “ ласточка ” ) , with his head , hands and legs being pulled together towards the spine .

QUANTITY police officers then took the applicant ’s son and PERSON to another police station . PERSON later testified to having seen a bruise on Mr Vyrzhikovskiy ’s forehead and to his having been in pain and having had difficulties getting into a police car .

Early in the morning on DATE Mr Vyrzhikovskiy was taken from the station to a hospital . He died there DATE . An autopsy report stated that the cause of death was “ a severe fat pulmonary embolism aggravated by bronchopneumonia with cerebral edema resulted from a comminuted humeral head fracture with a tear of joint capsules and massive bruises , suffusion and strain of soft tissue and the subcutaneous fat layer . ” A pathologist also found the following ante mortem injuries on Mr Vyrzhikovskiy ’s body , all directly linked to his death : massive bruises covering hands , chest , upper back , neck , armpits and most of his face and ears ; bruises on the left hip , right palm , right part of the stomach , right thigh , left knee , both calves ; abrasions and bruises on the buttocks . All injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt objects .

On DATE criminal investigation was initiated . The applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings . Several police officers were charged with manslaughter and abuse of powers entailing a substantial violation of individual rights , committed using violence .

On DATE the Moskovskiy District Court of GPE found the officers guilty as charged and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment . On DATE the St ORG partially quashed the judgment and acquitted officers of manslaughter for lack of evidence . While having found it established that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant ’s son intentionally in the police custody , ORG remitted the case for an additional investigation in order to identify those responsible for his death .

NORP On DATE the investigation was suspended because the timelimit for the investigation had expired and it was impossible to identify the perpetrators and to carry out any investigative measures in the absence of an accused . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that decision as lawful . The decision became final on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and live in the town of ORG in GPE .

On DATE the applicants’ son , Mr PERSON , was killed in GPE . Criminal proceedings were instituted against a Mr O. on a murder charge .

On DATE PERSON , an investigator of the Primorskiy district prosecutor ’s office in GPE , asked the head of the Primorskiy district police to identify relatives of the deceased , Mr PERSON ; to establish their place of residence and to summon them to the prosecutor ’s office for the purpose of granting them victim status in the criminal case .

DATE the applicants’ son was buried under his full name in GPE . A record in a cemetery registration log indicated that the body had been unclaimed .

On DATE the investigator , having concluded that it was impossible to identify relatives of the deceased , assigned the status of victim in the criminal case to a representative of the municipal authorities . The following day police officials informed the investigator that operative measures undertaken by them to identify Mr PERSON ’s relatives had not produced any result .

On DATE the applicants contacted PERSON and informed her of their intention to come to GPE to take part in the criminal proceedings .

NORP Despite the applicants’ notice , DATE PERSON sent the criminal case file to ORG for trial .

Sometime later the applicants were invited to take part in the criminal proceedings in the capacity of victims .

On DATE the applicants were allowed to exhume their son ’s remains . DATE they buried him in ORG .

On DATE the Primorskiy ORG found Mr O. guilty of having murdered the applicants’ son and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE , responding to the applicants’ complaints about the authorities’ failure to notify them of their son ’s death , ORG issued an interim decision ( частное постановление ) in respect of the investigator , PERSON The decision , addressed to the Primorskiy district prosecutor , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ Moreover , the [ finding ] that the investigator , PERSON , did not take sufficient steps to find relatives of the deceased and that measures undertaken [ by her ] were formalistic in character is not only confirmed by the fact that the decision assigning victim status to [ a representative of the municipal authority ] , had been taken before the information was received from the police officials , but also by the fact that criminal - case - file material contained sufficient information about [ the applicants’ son ] , on the basis of which it was possible to establish the place of residence of his relatives ( [ there was ] an explanation from Mr O. made on DATE , in which he had given the information about the place of residence of [ the ORG son ] ; a statement made by PERSON on DATE in which he said that a criminal case against [ the applicants’ son ] was pending before a court ; statements by a witness , PERSON , who asserted that [ the deceased ’s ] mother had occasionally made telephone calls to [ the deceased ’s ] flat ; a certificate on [ the deceased ’s ] criminal record from which it is apparent that the Primorskiy district prosecutor ’s office of GPE applied a measure of restraint in the form of a written undertaking in respect of [ the applicants’ son ] in criminal case no . DATE ; the material in the abovementioned criminal case file contain a copy of [ the applicants’ son ’s ] passport ; and so forth ) .

It follows that the GPE rights envisaged by the law in force were substantially violated in the course of the preliminary investigation .

Relying on LAW of LAW , [ the court ] rules :

that the violations of criminal - procedural law committed during the preliminary investigation in the criminal case should be brought to the attention of the Primorskiy district prosecutor in GPE ;

that the Primorskiy District Court of GPE should be informed of the measures taken DATE after the receipt of the present decision . ”

NORP In DATE the applicants lodged an action against ORG and ORG , seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . Relying on ORG interim decision of DATE , the applicants argued that as a result of the investigator ’s failure to promptly notify them of their son ’s death , they had sustained pecuniary damage , having been forced to pay for the exhumation and transport of their son ’s remains from GPE to ORG . In addition , they had suffered non - pecuniary damage as they had been unaware of their son ’s whereabouts for a long time and had been forced to initiate a search for him ; they had been unable to properly say “ goodbye ” to their son and to provide him with a decent burial ; they had been forced to go through a DATE bureaucratic procedure to obtain permission to exhume their son ’s remains ; and subsequently , after the exhumation , they had been forced to identify his disfigured remains .

On DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE dismissed the claim , having found that the investigator had not committed any unlawful actions and there had been no final decision by any domestic court to establish otherwise .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment endorsing ORG reasoning .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Josep Casadevall;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE . At the material time , the applicant was the head of a territorial election commission .

At TIME on DATE the day of the first round of the presidential elections DATE while on his way to the territorial election commission headquarters , the applicant met QUANTITY police officers walking in the same direction who were unfamiliar to him ( later identified as police officers PERSON and NORP ) . The applicant struck up a conversation with them , which apparently ended up in a verbal confrontation .

According to the applicant , when they reached FAC , the police officers pushed him inside and physically assaulted him .

According to the Government , when the group reached the police station , the applicant suddenly grabbed PERSON ’s uniform and the grille of the security door and started shouting that he was being beaten . After that , the applicant talked to the head of the police station and left .

On DATE , the applicant phoned a prosecutor and complained of the above events . The applicant stated that at TIME police officers he did not recognise had pushed him into the corridor of the police station , knocked him to the ground and started to kick him . A police officer who had been on duty at the time had seen this . The applicant had been kicked in the head , the groin and the spine . As he had also been shouting out during the incident , the head of the police station had come and had ordered the officers to let him go . These events had been witnessed by a certain S.

Later , the applicant also testified that he had seen CARDINAL unfamiliar police officers while walking to work . He had asked them where they were from , and had said that they would be working together DATE . They had answered that they were from the town of GPE . When the group had neared the police station , the applicant had been pushed inside . He had grabbed the door grille and shouted . The police officers had continued to hit him and had dragged him into the police station . There , they had kicked him to the floor and had continued to kick him while he was on the floor .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert , PERSON applicant complained of nausea and a headache , in addition to pain below his right shoulder blade , in the lumbar part of his spine , in his legs and in his groin . The applicant had a scratch on his left cheek and an oedema on his right leg . He was advised to consult both a surgeon and a neuropathologist . The applicant was supposed to go and see the expert again DATE , but did not do so .

On DATE , the police officers involved in the incident ( PERSON , NORP , NORP and PERSON ) were questioned . Police officer PERSON reported to the head of the police station that , while walking along the street with his CARDINAL colleagues , they had been approached by a stranger who had asked them provocative questions such as , “ Did you come here to kill and hang people ? What are you doing here ? What are you eavesdropping on ? ” The police officers had answered that they had been sightseeing and that the town was very beautiful . In reply , the man had said that they had seen enough and that they , “ should go to the town of PERSON where police officer PERSON should sit on the stork ’s post ” . The group had stopped near the police station , where the man had grabbed PERSON ’s shoulder strap with one hand and the door grille with the other hand , and had started shouting that he had been beaten . After that , the man had entered the police station .

The Government also submitted the testimonies of the above police officers , which were dated DATE and drafted in almost identical terms . According to those testimonies , in the morning of DATE , the police officers who had gone to NORP to assist in maintaining public order on DATE had been walking from their accommodation to the police station . An unknown man had approached them and shouted , “ The fascists are coming ! ” and had followed them to the police station while insulting them . When PERSON had tried to enter the police station , the man had grabbed the door grille and PERSON ’s left shoulder strap , and had started shouting that he was being beaten . The head of the police station had intervened . Nobody had hit the man .

On DATE , the entrance to the police station was inspected and no trace of a struggle was detected . PERSON ’s uniform coat was also inspected , and it was established that one of the bands with which his left shoulder strap had been attached had been torn off .

Police officers PERSON , NORP , NORP and PERSON were examined by a forensic expert and by a hospital doctor . It was confirmed that they had not sustained any physical injuries and had not been drunk at the relevant time .

On DATE testimonies of potential witnesses were collected .

The testimonies of the police officers present at the time of the incident in the police station were as follows :

- police officer PERSON . saw the applicant grab the door grille and shout as if somebody had been hitting him ;

- police officer PERSON . saw the applicant grab the door grille and shout hysterically . Twice , the applicant tried to kick a police officer , but missed ;

- police officer PERSON saw the applicant in the police station . The applicant was shouting at the police officers , threatening them with dismissal and calling them names ;

- police officer PERSON saw CARDINAL unfamiliar police officers , the applicant , and police officers PERSON . , ORG . , and PERSON . in the reception area of the police station . The applicant was shouting that he had been beaten ;

- the head of the police station , ORG . , and police officer Kl . saw the applicant talking to PERSON and asking , “ Who allowed you to beat me ? ” .

Forensic expert PERSON testified that he had examined the applicant at around TIME on DATE . The applicant had been complaining of nausea and a headache , in addition to pain in his back , groin and right leg . The applicant had had a scratch on his left cheek , which may have been caused by the skin being rubbed against some flat object with an uneven surface . The applicant had also had an oedema on his right leg . He had been advised to consult both a surgeon and a neuropathologist . The applicant had said that he had to work DATE , and so would consult the doctor DATE . According to PERSON , the applicant ’s account – that he had been severely beaten by CARDINAL police officers – was doubtful , as it contradicted the results of the physical examination .

S. , a journalist , testified that he had seen a group of police officers walking along the street , flanking the applicant . When the group had reached the police station , the police officers had pushed the applicant inside . The applicant had resisted and the police officers had kicked him on the legs , the stomach and groin and possibly in the back . S. had run towards the police station . He had heard the applicant shout at a police officer , “ Why are you beating me ? ” The head of the police station had been standing nearby .

A number of people were standing across the street from the police station at the relevant time and allegedly saw the incident . They testified as follows :

- Se . , the town mayor , said , “ The police officers and PERSON were walking along the street quite normally . I continued my conversation with other people and suddenly heard PERSON shouting , ‘ Leave me alone!’ PERSON grabbed the police ORG clothes and tried to tear away their shoulder straps . The police officers did not use any force . Everybody went into the police station . After TIME , PERSON then left the police station ” ;

- PERSON . , a district election commission member , said , “ A man was following CARDINAL police officers . As the first police officer was entering the police station , the man squeezed in between them . This was followed by some shouts and a shove in the doorway . The man was pushing the police officers and shouting , ‘ Help!’ and ‘ Let me go!’ ” ;

- Ku said , “ A man was following CARDINAL unfamiliar police officers . As CARDINAL police officer was entering the police station , the man started to push the others and to shout that they were not to touch or beat him . I did not see anybody beating him ” ;

- Tk . , a police officer , said , “ A man was walking behind the police officers . As CARDINAL police officer was entering the police station , the man pushed him . The man also shouted that they were not to touch him . After TIME , the man left the police station ” ;

- Ts . , a police officer , said , “ PERSON was following CARDINAL police officers . As CARDINAL of the police officers started to go into the police station , PERSON squeezed in between the other CARDINAL and started shouting that he was being beaten . He pushed the first police officer inside and then went in himself . PERSON left the police station after TIME ” .

NORP The applicant was in hospital from CARDINAL to DATE . While there , he complained that he had been physically assaulted on DATE , and was diagnosed with concussion .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . The available evidence was summarised as follows . CARDINAL witnesses ( including QUANTITY police officers ) testified that in the morning of DATE they had seen the applicant walking to the police station , accompanied by QUANTITY police officers . As CARDINAL of the police officers had gone into the police station , the applicant had squeezed in between the police officers and had started pushing them – grabbing at their uniforms and shouting that they should stop beating him and leave him alone . The witnesses did not see the applicant being physically assaulted . The police officers involved in the incident testified that they had not hit him . CARDINAL more police officers who had been in the police station at that time testified that nobody had hit the applicant . A forensic expert , PERSON , testified that he had examined the applicant at TIME on DATE . The applicant had had scratches on his left cheek and on his right leg . Judging by the applicant ’s injuries , the expert had doubted that the applicant had been beaten by CARDINAL police officers in the manner that he had alleged . ORG also noted that , as the applicant was in hospital at that time , it was impossible to establish the seriousness of the injuries he had sustained . In view of the evidence outlined above , the prosecutor concluded that the applicant ’s allegations were unsubstantiated and that there was no evidence of a crime having been committed .

On DATE , following a request from ORG , a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant had sustained minor physical injuries .

On DATE the ORG overruled the decision of DATE and remitted the case for further investigation . Amongst other things , it was noted that , in view of the applicant ’s stay in hospital , a forensic medical examination should have been carried out , and witnesses other than police officers – such as the applicant ’s relatives DATE should have been questioned .

In DATE in the course of further investigation , a hospital doctor testified that , following his admission to hospital , the applicant had complained that he had been physically assaulted , and had had bruises on his right leg .

A territorial election commission secretary testified that on DATE she had arrived at work at TIME The applicant had already arrived , and he had told her that he had been beaten . He had had no visible injuries .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the police officers for abuse of power .

The case material contains records of testimonies drafted in almost identical terms , which the QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident gave on DATE . Those testimonies are nearly identical to those given by the police officers on DATE , save that in the more recent testimonies all of the police officers added that they had been trained , and that , if they had indeed beaten the applicant , then he would have sustained much more serious injuries .

On DATE CARDINAL formal confrontations between the applicant and the police officers were also held . The parties were asked the following questions :

- Do you know each other and , if so , how did you meet and what is your current relationship ?

- Do you have any reason to lie about each other ?

- What were you doing when you met each other on the way to FAC ?

- In what manner did you enter FAC ?

- ( Of the police officers ) When did you learn that PERSON was the head of the territorial election commission ?

- Was PERSON subjected to physical or psychological pressure on DATE ?

- Were any procedural documents regarding PERSON drafted at the police station ?

The answers in all CARDINAL confrontation records are identical and are drafted in nearly identical terms .

NORP In response to the third question , the police officers said that the applicant had asked them who they were and what they were doing in town . Police officer PERSON had answered the applicant and had said that they were police officers and were walking around the town . The applicant had started to insult them .

The record of the confrontation between the applicant and PERSON also contains the following verbatim extract :

“ PERSON оказались в здании ORG в Одесской области ?

Л. : В райотдел милиции заходили через дверь по одному. PERSON двери зашел Л. , за ним начал заходить я , в этот момент гр. PERSON встал между мной и ORG , в дверях в райотдел. PERSON этом одной рукой схватился за решетку двери , другой за мое плече. ”

“ In what manner did you enter FAC ?

L. : We entered the police station CARDINAL by CARDINAL through the door . PERSON went in first , then me , but at that moment PERSON went to stand between me and PERSON in the doorway . He grabbed the door grille with one hand and my shoulder with the other hand . ”

On DATE , following a decision of DATE of ORG to conduct a forensic examination , a group of forensic medical experts concluded that the applicant had sustained a concussion , a scratch to his left cheek , and bruising to the left part of his face , his left hip and the lower part of his right leg . These injuries were categorised as minor .

DATE and DATE some of the above - mentioned witnesses ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) were questioned again . They gave testimonies similar to those of DATE .

On DATE , following a decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG to conduct a forensic examination , a group of forensic medical experts , having studied the relevant case file material , concluded that the applicant had sustained a concussion and a scratch to his left cheek . He had also sustained bruising to the left part of his face , his left hip and the lower part of his right leg . The bruises had been noted on the applicant ’s medical card on DATE . The expert had not mentioned them in the initial examination of DATE , as they had not yet been visible at that time . The forensic medical experts were of the opinion that the concussion , the scratch and the bruises to the left cheek and lower part of the applicant ’s right leg had been caused TIME before the initial examination at TIME on DATE . It was impossible to establish the exact time that the applicant ’s injuries had been caused . They could have been inflicted DATE , but also DATE . All of the injuries had been caused by blunt trauma . The possibility that the applicant had sustained the injuries when he had fallen could not be excluded .

On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings for the absence of any corpus delicti . The prosecutor concluded that the applicant had sustained the injuries in question when he had grabbed PERSON ’s coat inside the police station , lost his footing and fallen down .

On DATE the Odessa Regional Prosecutor ’s Office overruled that decision and remitted the case for further investigation . It was noted that not all of the witnesses had been questioned .

On DATE the proceedings were terminated again . It was noted that the witnesses PERSON . and PERSON . had not seen the applicant being subjected to ill - treatment . PERSON . had testified that the police officers “ had accompanied ” the applicant to the police station , but that he had not seen the applicant being beaten . PERSON . had seen the applicant after the incident .

On DATE ORG overruled that decision and remitted the case for further investigation .

On DATE , following a complaint lodged by police officers PERSON and PERSON , the decision of DATE to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was quashed by ORG as unsubstantiated , and the case material was sent to a prosecutor ’s office for a decision .

On DATE a group of forensic medical experts gave an opinion on the applicant ’s case . They were asked to say whether they thought that the applicant ’s second - degree disability ( друга група інвалідності ) was related to the injuries which he had sustained on DATE . The Government submitted an incomplete copy of the experts’ conclusion ( CARDINAL pages out of CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . It found that the applicant had created a conflict situation and had sustained injuries as a result of a fall .

On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The police officers tried again to challenge the decision of DATE in court , but to no avail .

On DATE ORG overruled the decision of DATE and remitted the case for further investigation .

In the course of that further investigation , the witnesses ( the police officers who were present at the time of the incident in the police station and the people who saw the incident from across the road ) , the applicant and police officers PERSON and NORP were questioned again . They all confirmed their previous testimonies . A formal confrontation between the applicant and PERSON and NORP was undertaken , as well as a reconstruction of events .

On DATE , following a decision of ORG , another forensic medical examination was completed . It concluded that the applicant had sustained a concussion and a scratch to his left cheek , bruises to the left part of his face , his left hip and the lower part of his right leg . Those injuries could have occurred on DATE between TIME , or later . All injuries had been caused by blunt trauma – impact from blunt objects or from falling down onto a hard surface , such as the floor .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were terminated for the absence of any corpus delicti . The conclusion was that at around TIME on DATE the applicant had approached CARDINAL police officers – D. , PERSON DATE who had been in charge of maintaining public order on DATE of the elections . The applicant had started to call them names . When the police officers had tried to go into the police station , the applicant had squeezed in between them , grasped the iron grille of the door with one hand and PERSON ’s coat by the other , and had started shouting that he was being beaten in an effort to attract attention . The police officers and the applicant had finally entered the police station , and police officer PERSON had had his left shoulder - strap torn off . CARDINAL police officers had testified that nobody had beaten the applicant in the police station . Other witnesses had testified that they had not seen the applicant being physically assaulted . According to the forensic medical examination , the applicant ’s injuries could have been inflicted DATE TIME or later on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE a forensic medical expert , B. , had testified during the reconstruction of events that if the applicant ’s version of events had been true , then he would have sustained more serious physical injuries . It was therefore concluded that the police officers had committed no crime .

The applicant challenged that decision before more senior prosecutors , but to no avail . By letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that , following the investigation , it had been established that on DATE he had approached CARDINAL police officers and started to insult them and call them “ black - shoulder - strappers ” . He had also torn off the left shoulder strap of police officer L. Moreover , it had been established that the police officers had not used force against the applicant and that , on the contrary , the applicant had tried to kick one of the police officers in the groin while in the police station . Consequently , there were no grounds for overruling the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant also instituted proceedings for damages against ORG , but to no avail , as his claims were rejected for failure to comply with procedural requirements .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

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

In DATE the applicant ’s mother , who was born in DATE , bought an apartment from PERSON Shortly afterwards serious technical flaws in the apartment came to light . The applicant ’s mother intended to institute civil proceedings against the seller for compensation .

She became depressed as a result of the substantial pecuniary loss she had suffered because of the transaction , which she considered fraudulent . In DATE she attempted to commit suicide . She was admitted to hospital on DATE and discharged on DATE . The hospital records indicate that she was diagnosed with “ a depressive reaction ” .

On DATE PERSON informed the prosecuting authorities that the applicant ’s mother had phoned her and uttered threats against her . She had allegedly told PERSON that she would kill her as she had ruined her life by selling her a worthless apartment which she had paid for with her life savings . On DATE PERSON ’s father was questioned . He confirmed that the applicant ’s mother had uttered threats against PERSON

The case file contains a note drawn up by the police and dated DATE to the effect that a police officer tried to serve a summons for questioning on the applicant ’s mother at FAC , but to no avail . He was informed by persons living at that address that she had sold that apartment .

By a bill of indictment dated DATE ORG charged the applicant ’s mother with the offence of uttering threats . The bill was subsequently lodged with ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered , having regard to the applicant ’s mother ’s attempt to commit suicide , that a psychiatric expert opinion be prepared on the question of whether she could be held criminally responsible .

On DATE ORG appointed a legal - aid lawyer to represent the applicant ’s mother in the proceedings . On DATE the entire criminal case file was forwarded to the psychiatric clinic that was to carry out the psychiatric examination of the defendant .

Subsequently , by letters dated CARDINAL and DATE of the experts at the clinic sent summonses to the applicant ’s mother at the address at PERSON

Street where she no longer lived ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) for examinations to be carried out at the clinic on DATE and DATE . The summonses were not served either on her or on any member of her family . The service confirmation slips ( potwierdzenie odbioru ) were not returned either to the court or to the experts .

On DATE CARDINAL of the experts informed ORG by phone that the applicant ’s mother had twice failed to attend the psychiatric examination on the dates fixed . On DATE the experts informed the court in writing of the applicant ’s mother ’s failure to attend the examination . They requested the court to arrange for her to be taken to the clinic under police escort for the examination on DATE .

NORP On DATE the court , having regard to the applicant ’s mother ’s failure to comply with the summonses and being unaware of the fact that they had not been served on her , ordered the police to arrest her and escort her to the clinic for the purposes of the examination .

At TIME on DATE the applicant ’s mother was arrested by CARDINAL police officers at her correct address at FAC . She was subsequently escorted to the clinic . She was examined by CARDINAL psychiatrists TIME and discharged on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother was found dead in a basement of her house . She had committed suicide by hanging herself .

In a psychiatric opinion dated DATE and served on the court on DATE , psychologist PERSON and psychiatrist PERSON summarised the interview held with the applicant ’s mother on DATE . They noted that she had not had psychotic symptoms and had not reported suicidal thoughts or tendencies . They diagnosed her as suffering from an adjustment disorder ( zaburzenia adaptacyjne ) . The experts further declared that at the material time she had been able to understand the significance of her actions and that , regard being had to her general mental health , she was fit to stand trial .

On DATE the Gostyń police discontinued an investigation concerning a suspicion that third parties might have assisted the applicant ’s mother in committing suicide , having regard to the opinion of the doctor who had declared her dead that there was no indication that any third parties had been involved . The decision concluded that the most likely cause of the suicide was nervous breakdown ( załamanie nerwowe ) .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to verify whether the investigation and proceedings in respect of her mother had been conducted properly . She submitted that the attempted suicide in DATE and her fragile mental state should have prompted the authorities to conduct the proceedings with particular diligence . Instead , summonses had twice been sent by psychiatrists to the wrong address and they had never been served on her . The court had ordered that she be arrested and taken to the psychiatric clinic . She had been seriously traumatised by the arrest , as indicated by the fact that she had committed suicide on DATE after the examination .

That complaint was forwarded to the President of the Poznań Regional Court , who replied on DATE . The relevant part of his letter reads :

“ It is true that the experts , apparently by mistake , sent the summonses to the wrong address , but the court was not aware of this and that is why it ordered that she should be escorted to the examination [ by the police ] . There are no grounds on which to conclude that the court ’s decision was wrong , but there can be no doubt that it was based on a wrong premise [ nie ma zatem podstaw do przyjęcia , że postępowanie sądu było błędne , natomiast niewątpliwie opierało się na błędnych przesłankach ] . ”

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to institute a criminal investigation in order to identify the persons responsible for her mother ’s arrest which , in her opinion , had led to her suicide . She submitted that her mother had already tried to commit suicide in DATE ; that at the material time her mental condition had been precarious ; and that the psychiatrists had sent the summonses to the wrong address despite the fact that the correct address had been available in the file . The judge had also failed to check whether the summonses had been sent to the correct address and whether they had been duly served on her . As a result , she had been arrested by the police in TIME of DATE . Her neighbours had told the applicant that during the arrest her mother had been crying . The applicant submitted that her mother had been an elderly , fragile person on the brink of a nervous breakdown and that the manner in which the case had been handled had driven her to commit suicide .

On DATE the request was forwarded to ORG .

On DATE ORG refused to institute an investigation , having examined the case under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . It was confirmed that the summonses to attend the psychiatric examination had twice been sent to the wrong address and had never been served on the applicant ’s mother . The prosecutor was of the view that the court could not be held responsible for that error . It had not known the defendant ’s correct address as the entire case file had already been forwarded to the experts at that time . The applicant ’s submission that there was a causal link between the defendant ’s arrest on DATE and her suicide DATE was too categorical . There were no grounds on which to accept that the prosecuting authorities , the police or the court had failed to perform their duties properly or that the applicant ’s mother had been driven to suicide as a result of such failure .

The written grounds of that decision did not refer to any evidence other than the file of the criminal case against the applicant ’s mother .

The applicant appealed . She argued that her mother had suffered from depression caused by the transaction she considered fraudulent and that the authorities had been well aware of this . The court had relied on her earlier attempt to commit suicide when ordering the psychiatric examination . Appropriate regard had not been had to the fact that she was psychologically fragile . The authorities had failed to conduct the criminal case against her properly . No steps had been taken by the court to establish her correct address , although it had been available in the case file , in order to serve the summonses correctly . As a result of that failure , her mother had been arrested on DATE . The arrest had been tremendously traumatic for her . In the applicant ’s opinion , the fact that her mother had committed suicide just after the examination was proof that the opinion prepared by the experts after her death to the effect that she was fit to stand trial was worthless .

On DATE the Leszno ORG examined the appeal . The applicant did not attend the hearing . In a decision rendered on DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The relevant parts of the written grounds of this decision , numbering one - and a CARDINAL page read as follows :

“ The appellant ’s submission that there was a well - founded suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed could not be shared [ by the court ] in respect of :

- the prosecutor , because ... he had a right to draw up a bill of indictment within DATE of the investigation being closed and he did so in the present case ;

- the judge conducting the proceedings , as he was entitled to appoint psychiatrists to the case with a view to checking whether the defendant could stand trial and to order that the defendant be taken to the psychiatric examination under police escort ; he did so as he had been informed in writing that the defendant had twice failed to comply with summonses ;

- the experts in so far as they failed to foresee that [ the applicant ’s mother ] would make another suicide attempt , this time a successful one , as they gave their opinion in accordance with their best knowledge and conscience ; ...

It is true that the police escort order given by the court failed to take into consideration that the experts had sent the summonses to the wrong address , but the court could not know that , given that at the time the case file had already been forwarded to the experts . This , however , can not change the assessment of the events from the point of view of criminal responsibility , in particular as to the presence of a causal link between the [ applicant ’s mother ] being taken to the examination by police escort and her subsequent attempt to commit suicide . ”

Subsequently the applicant requested ORG ( Okręgowy PERSON ) of ORG ( Izba Lekarska ) to institute disciplinary proceedings against the psychiatrists .

By a decision of DATE the Agent discontinued the investigation , having questioned the psychiatrists . He referred to the fact that the service confirmation slips sent to the applicant ’s mother had not been served on the psychiatrists . This suggested that the summonses had been properly served on her . As she had failed to comply with the summonses , they had no choice but to inform the court accordingly . The defendant had subsequently been arrested by the police for the purposes of the examination . The psychiatrists had explained that the defendant ’s conduct during the examination was not such as to justify her immediate psychiatric internment . Their opinion had therefore been well - founded and they had no case to answer .

The applicant appealed . She reiterated that information about her mother ’s accurate address had been in the case - file which the psychiatrists had had at their disposal . They had failed to act diligently by establishing her address correctly . They were aware of her earlier attempt to commit suicide but still they had found her able to stand trial . She reiterated that the arrest and taking her to the clinic under the police escort were traumatising and dishonourable for her mother who felt belittled thereby in the eyes of her friends and neighbours .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the Wielkopolska Region ( PERSON ) , sitting in camera , upheld the contested decision . It was of the view that the fact that the psychiatrists had sent the summonses to the wrong address amounted to a formal shortcoming , but it did not have an impact on or had not caused the later tragic events . Similarly , in so far as the applicant had complained about her mother ’s arrest by the police , this could not be held against the doctors . The arrest had been ordered by the court in the context of the criminal proceedings , not by the doctors . It was further stated that the psychiatric opinion drawn up by the CARDINAL psychiatrists was correct , and the diagnosis they had made not open to criticism .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads :

“ Whoever by persuasion or by rendering assistance induces a human being to take his or her life shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . ”

Article CARDINAL of that Code provides :

“ § CARDINAL . A public official who , exceeding his authority or failing to perform his or her duty , acts to the detriment of a public or individual interest , shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for DATE .

§ CARDINAL . If the perpetrator commits the act specified in § CARDINAL with the purpose of obtaining financial or personal gain , he or she shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE .

§ CARDINAL . If the perpetrator of the act specified in LAW above acts unintentionally and causes substantial damage , he or she shall be subject to a fine or restriction of personal liberty or deprivation of liberty for a period not exceeding DATE . “

ORG , in a decision of DATE ( DATE ) , held that only a public official acting intentionally and with intent to act to the detriment of the victim could be charged with the offence stipulated in LAW .


CASE OF VIEIRA GOMES BEZERRA v. PORTUGAL

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

The applicant was born in ORG ( GPE ) and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant started civil proceedings against CARDINAL companies before ORG ( GPE ) . The proceedings concerned the occupation of a land which the applicant claimed to be her own ( domestic proceedings no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINALTBVNG ) .

The defendants contested the proceedings and the court ordered that the size of the land be analysed by an expertise . These procedural steps ended on DATE .

In the first trimester of DATE an attempt of conciliation of the parties took place .

On DATE the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings as the property was not registered in the name of the applicant , before ORG ( Conservatória do PERSON ) .

On DATE the court ordered the interruption of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant joined an additional supporting document to the proceedings , informing the court of the registration of the land . The judge ordered the proceedings to be resumed .

According to the last information received by ORG , the proceedings are still pending .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . CARDINAL the applicant also raised a complaint under LAW .


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

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

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

On DATE the second applicant , together with the antecedents of the other applicants , bought from the then existing local agricultural co - operative a plot of land situated on the outskirts of GPE measuring QUANTITY . DATE the applicants or their antecedents enjoyed undisturbed possession of that land .

On DATE a group of persons , the heirs of Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , brought against the applicants a rei vindicatio action , stating that the plot of land was theirs . They stated that the plot , once the property of their antecedents , had been collectivised in DATE , but had been returned to them within the context of the process of the restitution of agricultural land by a decision of the relevant body , the local land commission , dated DATE . They claimed that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the fact that the second applicant and the remaining applicants’ antecedents had purchased the land in DATE could not be held against them .

Initially , ORG ( its judgement is undated ) dismissed the action against the applicants . After an appeal by the heirs of Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON , on DATE the ORG overturned that ruling , allowed the rei vindicatio claim and ordered the applicants to surrender possession of the plot . It found in particular that the land commission ’s decision of DATE was sufficient to render the claimants the owners of the disputed land . It pointed out that of the CARDINAL rival claims to the same plot the law – namely section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW – gave priority to the CARDINAL based on restitution , and thus had the effect of rendering devoid of any legal force the contract under which the second applicant and the remaining applicants’ predecessors had bought the plot .

In a final decision of DATE ORG declined to entertain a cassation appeal by the applicants .

On an unspecified date soon after that the applicants surrendered possession of the plot .