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;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .

NORP In DATE a group of officers from ORG of GPE ( “ ORG ” ) and the “ LOC ” special armed unit received a mission order to arrest several individuals , including the applicant , implicated in a number of crimes committed as members of a criminal association affiliated with the Odessa Komsomol ( Young Communist League ) , including illegal arms handling , terrorism , assault and robbery with a view to preparing a communist revolution .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL armed officers of the ORG and CARDINAL officers of the “ NORP ” unit arrived at a flat in PERSON occupied at the material time by the applicant and CARDINAL of his acquaintances , and ordered them to lie on the floor . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s acquaintances complied with the order , while the applicant and another associate started shooting at the officers with firearms . As a result of the shooting , several officers sustained bodily injuries and damage to their protective gear . Having exhausted his cartridges , the applicant attempted to detonate an explosive . At this moment , the officers knocked him onto the floor , immobilised and handcuffed him .

At QUANTITY on the same date an investigator with ORG drafted an arrest report , indicating that the applicant was suspected , in particular , of attempting to murder law - enforcement officers , that he had been notified of his procedural rights , including the rights to remain silent and to obtain legal assistance , and that he had expressed the wish to have a lawyer .

At an unspecified time on the same date the applicant was referred to a forensic medical expert to determine the gravity of his bodily injuries . According to the applicant , the expert assessment was carried out on DATE . According to the Government , it was carried out the following day ( DATE ) . The assessment revealed that the applicant was suffering from a number of bruises and abrasions to his face , limbs , chest and knees , had swollen lips and a wound on his forehead . The expert qualified the injuries as “ minor ” and recorded that the applicant had complained of headaches and pain in his limbs and ribs and had explained that he had sustained his injuries when resisting arrest . In particular , he had fallen , had been beaten by the “ NORP ” officers and had been subjected to martial arts .

At an unspecified time on DATE the applicant and his co - detainees were placed in police custody in LOC of Mykolayiv .

According to the applicant , in TIME of DATE and the TIME of DATE he was beaten by police officers , possibly in retaliation for having wounded CARDINAL officers from their unit DATE ( on DATE ) . Subsequently , the officers questioned him concerning the offences of which he was suspected and solicited incriminating statements concerning a number of other individuals implicated in the revolutionary communist activity . As the applicant refused to cooperate , the officers resorted to various torture techniques . In particular , they suspended him head down from a crowbar by his hands , which were handcuffed behind his knees ; beat him with rubber truncheons ; stuck needles under his nails ; put a gas mask on his face and interrupted his air flow ; banged his head against the wall ; and jumped on his chest .

According to the ORG , the applicant ’s first questioning did not take place until TIME of DATE . It was conducted in the presence of PERSON . , who was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant ’s legal - aid lawyer . They presented a copy of the police report made on DATE . According to that report , which was co - signed by the applicant and PERSON . , in the course of questioning the applicant informed the investigative authorities that he had arrived in GPE in DATE to advance the revolutionary struggle of the working people against their capitalist exploitation , in particular , by distributing a newspaper and organising trade unions and strike committees . The applicant further acknowledged that he possessed various arms without a licence and had wounded QUANTITY police officers of the GPE police on DATE , when they had stopped him in the street and ordered him to empty his pockets . When asked about the origin of the injuries on his face , the applicant said that they had been caused during his arrest operation .

On DATE PERSON . complained to the ORG investigator that the applicant ’s health was deteriorating and demanded a medical assessment .

On DATE the applicant was referred to a doctor and a neurologist of the ORG polyclinics . They noted , in particular , that the applicant ’s ribs hurt when touched and that his wrists were swollen . The applicant was diagnosed with chest , face and knee contusions and was prescribed an x - ray . It was also recommended that the use of handcuffs should be limited and various medications were prescribed .

On DATE the applicant was again examined by a neurologist from the ORG polyclinics , who confirmed the above findings and prescribed further medication .

On DATE , who replaced PERSON . as the applicant ’s lawyer , lodged a complaint with the prosecutor ’s office alleging that the applicant had been beaten and tortured by PERSON police officers and demanding a criminal investigation of his bodily injuries .

In DATE the GPE police collected reports from QUANTITY police officers who had been on duty on DATE by way of an internal investigation of the applicant ’s ill - treatment allegations . Referring to those reports , in which the officers denied having witnessed or taken part in any ill - treatment , it was concluded that no ill - treatment had taken place . According to the applicant , neither he nor his lawyer had been informed of that investigation and its findings .

On DATE the applicant was examined by medical staff of the Mykolayiv pre - trial detention centre ( GPE ) and in - patient treatment for pulmonary pneumonia was prescribed .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment . It noted that the applicant had actively resisted his arrest , including by using a firearm , attempting to detonate an explosive and wounding some of the police officers . As the officers had had to break his violent resistance , there were no grounds for suspecting that the minor bodily injuries recorded by the forensic experts had resulted from the application of disproportionate force or from police ill - treatment . According to the applicant , neither he nor his lawyer had been apprised of that decision .

On DATE the applicant underwent a further forensic assessment to determine whether he was still suffering from bodily injuries and , if so , their origin and timing . The expert concluded that the applicant was suffering from several wounds and a number of abrasions on various parts of his body , which had resulted from impacts with blunt objects . However , she could not say precisely when the injuries had been sustained .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who diagnosed him with suspected accumulation of blood in the pleural cavity ( hemothorax ) , dystrophy and post - traumatic neuropathy of the wrists , and prescribed treatment .

On DATE the hemothorax diagnosis was confirmed by an X - ray and the applicant underwent a biopsy , after which his state of health slowly started to improve . Subsequently , on numerous occasions in DATE the applicant was examined by doctors , who prescribed treatment for his wrist , dystrophy and pulmonary problems .

NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE pre - trial detention centre ( GPE ) no . CARDINAL and subsequently placed in its medical unit for in - patient treatment of pneumonia . According to the applicant , his treatment was inadequate . In particular , the unit did not have the necessary antibiotics in stock and refused him an operation to remove a fractured rib fragment , which had allegedly pierced his lung .

NORP In DATE the applicant was released from the medical unit as his health had improved and placed in a regular GPE cell . According to him , the GPE was generally overcrowded and the sanitary conditions were poor .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , was replaced by ORG , who lodged a fresh complaint with the prosecutor ’s office demanding an investigation of the applicant ’s purported ill - treatment in DATE . He alleged that the applicant had not sustained any serious injuries in the course of his arrest , as once he had exhausted his cartridges , the trained officers , who had significantly outnumbered the CARDINAL resisting suspects , had quickly immobilised him . On the other hand , once in custody , the applicant had been severely beaten up and tortured by the police officers . As a result , he had sustained serious injuries , including long - term impairment of the wrist nerve function and CARDINAL fractured ribs .

On DATE the applicant underwent a further forensic medical assessment , in which a board of experts was asked to determine whether the applicant was suffering from any illnesses at the material time and whether he was fit for detention . The board of experts concluded that the applicant had consolidated fractures of CARDINAL ribs and residual traces of pulmonary pneumonia . They further concluded that the applicant ’s state of health in general was stable and that he did not need any medical intervention at the material time .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s ill - treatment allegations , having found that there was no basis to conclude that his injuries had been indicative of ill - treatment or the application of disproportionate force by the arresting officers . The decision referred to the results of the internal investigation by the Leninskyy police in DATE , to the findings of the medical experts who had qualified the applicant ’s injuries as minor , and to the accounts of the arresting officers concerning the violent nature of the applicant ’s resistance during his arrest . It was also noted that the applicant had not complained of purported ill - treatment until DATE after the relevant events .

On DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL other individuals implicated in criminal activity as members of the GPE group , was committed to stand trial before ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) acting as a first - instance tribunal .

According to the applicant , on DATE he was often summoned to an overcrowded transit area early in the morning and would sometimes have to wait for TIME before being transported to the court LOC . Likewise , there would be a delay in transferring him from the transit box back to his regular cell upon his return . Catering arrangements were rarely made for the detainees on DATE they were scheduled for court hearings . As a result , the applicant was always exhausted on DATE , which impeded his ability to concentrate during his trial .

According to the ORG , pursuant to the applicable regulations , the detainees scheduled for court hearings were always supplied with either a packed lunch or a hot lunch at the court building . There were no transportation delays or other inconveniences affecting the applicant ’s concentration in a way which was incompatible with his effective participation in the trial .

During the trial , the applicant acknowledged that he held revolutionary communist views and had taken part in some actions mistakenly qualified as robberies , as in fact they had been “ expropriations ” of property obtained by the capitalists by way of exploiting the working class , to be used for revolutionary purposes . He also acknowledged that he had handled firearms and explosives without a licence , had inflicted gunshot wounds on CARDINAL police officers on DATE and had violently resisted arrest . The applicant chose to remain silent concerning the details of robberies and other crimes with which he was charged , as they had been committed in association with other co - defendants . He also stated that he had been beaten and tortured by the police in DATE , but that the ill - treatment had not influenced his testimonies or defence strategy .

In DATE B. , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - defendants , died in detention . Following his death , some of the defendants complained that PERSON had been tortured to death and demanded an investigation into his and the others’ alleged ill - treatment by the investigative authorities .

The court ordered the prosecutor ’s office to investigate those allegations . Following the investigation , the prosecutor ’s office reported that there was no case to answer . In particular , PERSON had died of cancer and the applicant had been injured as a result of the application of reasonable force during his arrest .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of distribution of materials propagating violent revolt against the constitutional order ; membership of a criminal association ; several armed robberies ; attempted murder of police officers ; smuggling ; and illegal handling of firearms and explosives . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court dismissed his allegations of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated , having accepted the findings of the prosecutor ’s office that his injuries had been caused during his arrest .

The applicant , represented by ORG , lodged a cassation appeal . According to an uncertified and unsigned copy of that appeal presented by the applicant to ORG , in his submissions before ORG he argued that he had been arbitrarily convicted of the robberies based on the inconsistent testimonies of his co - defendants . He further alleged that he had had no intent to kill the law - enforcement officers he had wounded , and that the motives for his participation in the revolutionary communist movement were benevolent and aimed at liberating the people from an oppressive political regime . He further reiterated his complaints of ill - treatment by the police and demanded a criminal investigation .

On DATE the applicant signed an affidavit that he had no claims against the GPE administration or any inmates .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction and sentence in principle , having made some amendments to the text . It noted , in particular , that the applicant ’s conviction was based on sufficient evidence , including testimonies by some of his co - defendants and victims of his crimes and that there was no case of ill - treatment to answer . The applicant ’s conviction for distribution of propaganda was neither challenged nor reviewed .

In DATE the applicant was transferred from the GPE to the ORG no . CARDINAL correctional colony in LOC to serve his sentence .

NORP In DATE the applicant was again transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL correctional colony in LOC , at which a less strict regime was in place .

On DATE the administration of the GPE SIZO , where the applicant had arrived by way of transit , registered the applicant ’s intention to go on hunger strike .

Following a medical report by the GPE medical commission , which concluded that the applicant ’s health was degenerating , he was force - fed on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant arrived at ORG .

On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination and was found to be suffering from dystrophy . He was also diagnosed with pancreatitis and heart and liver failure , and was prescribed in - patient treatment . On the same date the applicant stopped his hunger strike and continued to receive in - patient treatment for pancreatitis for most of DATE .

In DATE and DATE the NORP authorities received several applications from NORP - based public interest groups concerning the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment by the prison authorities during his transit and on DATE of his arrival at FAC . They noted , in particular , that according to their information , the prison authorities had arbitrarily refused to dispatch the applicant ’s correspondence while he had been in transit . They continued that , in protest at this refusal , on DATE the applicant had started a hunger strike , which had been neither registered nor medically monitored until DATE , thus leading to the deterioration of his health . Subsequently the applicant had been force - fed , which procedure had been degrading . Furthermore , following his arrival at ORG , the wardens had ordered him to mop the floors as a sign of his inferiority and subservience , notwithstanding his critical state of exhaustion . As the applicant had refused to comply with this order , the wardens had beaten him up and he had received no proper medical assistance .

On DATE and DATE the applicant , questioned by an officer from the prosecutor ’s office in connection with the above - mentioned applications , indicated in writing that he had no complaints against the prison authorities and that he had been satisfied with the quality of medical supervision and assistance provided to him .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office informed the Consulate of GPE that the applicant had no complaints concerning the conditions of his detention or the medical assistance available to him . In particular , he had undergone treatment for various diseases , including dystrophy , and his weight had increased from CARDINAL to QUANTITY .

In DATE several NORP - based public interest groups complained to the NORP authorities that the prison administration had subjected the applicant to unfair treatment . In particular , his correspondence stored in his dresser had been arbitrarily seized .

DATE . On DATE the prosecutor ’s office denied that there had been any breaches of the applicant ’s rights by the prison administration . It acknowledged that the allegations that some letters from the applicant ’s file had been missing were true . However , rather than having been seized by the administration , they had been mistakenly recycled by another prisoner , who had been cleaning the cell . The applicant himself had refused to pursue any claims against the administration .

DATE the applicant received treatment for tuberculosis , which was subsequently considered cured .

On DATE the GPE department for the enforcement of sentences informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the applicant had received all the necessary medical treatment and at the material time his health was satisfactory .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to send the applicant ’s lawyer in GPE copies of various documents from his case file , referring to the lack of necessary resources for copying and posting . It further notified the lawyer that he could study the case file in court and take any extracts he considered necessary , if he so wished .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to the FAC no . CARDINAL colony .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant left GPE with his family for the GPE in DATE when he was DATE . After claiming asylum , it would appear that the family were given a period of leave to remain in the GPE . During this period the applicant married and had a son , born in DATE . The applicant ’s family travelled to GPE in DATE . The applicant initially remained in the GPE but on DATE he arrived in GPE , where he claimed asylum . In doing so , he provided the immigration authorities with a false name and a false immigration history in order to avoid being sent back to the GPE . Although the asylum application was unsuccessful the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain until DATE .

The applicant received CARDINAL criminal convictions over the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . In DATE he was convicted of a public order offence and of failing to surrender . He was sentenced to CARDINAL half months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was served with notice that the Secretary of ORG intended to make a deportation order against him . The same letter refused an application for indefinite leave to remain in GPE . The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision to deport him on DATE . That appeal was dismissed on DATE and his appeal rights were exhausted on DATE .

On DATE , when the applicant had served CARDINAL of his final custodial sentence and was eligible for release from prison , he was detained under paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to the Immigration Act DATE pending the making of a deportation order against him . The Secretary of ORG signed the deportation order on DATE and he was thereafter detained under paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to the Immigration Act DATE pending his removal from GPE .

On DATE removal directions were set for CARDINAL DATE . However , they were cancelled on DATE when the applicant made an application to this ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) , which granted an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG .

The applicant ’s detention was reviewed DATE and the review forms set out the reasons for maintaining detention . The form from DATE includes the following statement in reference to the Rule CARDINAL measure : “ Whilst this means that enforced removal is not possible , [ the applicant ] could reduce the length of time he spends in detention by withdrawing voluntarily ” . A similar point features in some , if not all , of the later forms . The form for DATE notes that “ Rule CARDINAL ORG is a barrier to removal but I note that FRS [ Facilitated Return Scheme ] is an option that should be explored to the full to expedite his removal from the GPE ” . Likewise , the form for DATE states that “ [ t]he length of detention is a direct result of his appeals against deportation and , although it is now DATE , he has the real option of return to GPE with ORG . This option should be further explained to the subject ” . Furthermore , the form from DATE indicated that the applicant “ could minimise his time in detention by withdrawing [ the application to the ORG ] and taking up ORG which is offered DATE ” and that he could “ end his detention by volunteering to return ( with or without FRS ) at any time ” .

Applications for bail were refused on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE as ORG were not satisfied that the applicant would answer to any conditions set . On DATE the Immigration Judge further noted that although the applicant had been in detention for a lengthy period , “ the most recent period of detention is on account of delays with his own application to ORG .

NORP The applicant made further representations against removal on DATE . Those representations were treated as an application for revocation of the deportation order , but on CARDINAL DATE the Secretary of ORG refused to revoke the order . However , following an appeal by the applicant , the Secretary of ORG withdrew the refusal decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim for judicial review , contending that his ongoing detention was unlawful . Permission was granted on DATE but a further application for bail was refused . On DATE , DATE after the ORG ruled in NORP and ORG v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) , the applicant was granted bail .

A hearing took place on DATE . Pursuant to the principles set down by ORG in NORP v. FAC Governor ex parte ORG PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL ( see section on domestic law below ) , the Secretary of ORG can not lawfully detain a person pending removal for longer than a reasonable period and , if it becomes apparent that the deportation can not be effected within a reasonable period , the detention will become unlawful even if the reasonable period has not yet expired . The applicant claimed that his detention was in breach of the principles ( a ) on or after DATE when the ORG granted an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG ; ( b ) on or immediately after DATE when he applied to revoke the deportation order ; or ( c ) at all points after the revocation refusal on CARDINAL DATE .

In a judgment dated DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It noted that in deciding whether or not there was a realistic prospect that deportation would take place within a reasonable time , the risk of absconding or re - offending were “ of paramount importance ” but neither risk could be regarded as a “ trump card ” . Moreover , the fact that the period of detention occurred while the applicant was pursuing an appeal or comparable judicial process would also be a highly relevant factor , especially if there was a risk of absconding or reoffending .

The court noted that the applicant in the present case had CARDINAL convictions for absconding and ORG had consistently concluded that he was a significant abscond risk . It agreed with ORG and also concluded that the risk was plainly substantial on the evidence available . Equally , the court took into account the fact that the applicant had family in the country at the times he absconded and therefore , contrary to his assertions , their presence did not remove the risk of absconding . Likewise , the Secretary of ORG ’s detention reviews had characterised the risk of the applicant reoffending as “ high ” . The court further noted that the applicant ’s offences became less serious and more intermittent as time went on . However , the fact remained that while he was free he was committing offences of such seriousness as to require him to be imprisoned , including robbery and public order offences . The court also considered whether alternatives to detention could be used such as electronic tagging , monitoring by telephone and regular reporting . However , given the applicant ’s history of absconding , it concluded that the alternatives would not have been sufficient and there was an absence of adequate assurances from the applicant .

At the time ORG noted that the interim measure under LAW , was awaiting a lead judgment on returns to GPE ( NORP and ORG , cited above ) and it was clear that there would be no resolution of the applicant ’s claim - and the interim measure would therefore not be lifted - before that judgment was handed down . However , ORG observed that at the time the interim measure was indicated , there was uncertainty about when that judgment could be expected . Moreover , while the applicants in NORP and ORG would have had a reasonable to good prospect of success , a positive outcome had not been inevitable . Consequently , ORG did not accept that there was not , at the time the interim measure was indicated , a realistic prospect of removing the applicant within a reasonable time .

Furthermore , the court did not accept that by the time of the applicant ’s application for a revocation order , a reasonable period had already expired or that there was no realistic prospect of deportation within a reasonable time . In addition , it observed that the Secretary of ORG had been entitled to take DATE to consider the applicant ’s personal situation in light of the judgment in NORP and ORG . It therefore did not consider his continued detention up to DATE to be unlawful .

The applicant was granted permission to appeal to ORG . On appeal , he restated his arguments concerning the ORG PERSON principles which had been advanced in the court below . In addition , he submitted that the detention was vitiated by CARDINAL public law errors that bore directly on the decision to detain : first , following the indication of the interim measure the Secretary of ORG had failed to take any reasonable steps to acquaint herself with when it might be lifted ; and secondly , that the detention was maintained on the unlawful basis that the applicant could reduce the length of time in detention by withdrawing his application to the ORG and returning voluntarily to GPE . Finally , the applicant argued that his detention was in breach of LAW .

NORP In its judgment of DATE , tthe applicant ’s appeal against deportation as well as CARDINAL separate bail applications had been rejected by immigration judges , as well as the broader context in relation to the on - going litigation concerning removals to GPE both before the domestic courts and tribunals as well as before ORG ( see § § CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) . It took into consideration the fact that the Rule CARDINAL measure applied in the applicant ’s case did not involve any specific assessment of risk towards him by this ORG , since at the material time this ORG had adopted a fact - insensitive approach towards Rule CARDINAL measures in respect of removals to GPE , and noted the consequence that from DATE this ORG had adjourned CARDINAL applications concerning removal to GPE . It also took account of correspondence between the ORG and the registry of this ORG from which it was clear that from DATE the ORG would be granting a fact - insensitive Rule CARDINAL measure to any applicant with removal directions to GPE as well as the separate correspondence between the Government and this Court concerning the progress of NORP and ORG , cited above and the linked domestic case law .

With regard to the ORG PERSON ground , ORG stated that there could be a realistic prospect of success without it being possible to specify or predict the date by which , or the period in which , removal can reasonably be expected to occur . It accepted that at the time of receipt of the Rule CARDINAL measure in the applicant ’s case , although it was not possible to say when the proceedings before the ORG would be concluded , there was nonetheless a reasonable prospect of their being concluded and of removal being effected within a reasonable time . Likewise , ORG saw no reason to differ from the overall conclusion of the lower court on the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention at the time of the application for revocation of the deportation order or after the judgment in NORP and ORG was handed down . Lord Justice PERSON dissented on CARDINAL point only : acknowledging that “ there is no one right answer to the question what is a reasonable period ” , he believed that the period of DATE which elapsed following the judgment in NORP and ORG before the applicant was released from detention was not reasonable in all the circumstances .

With regard to the second ground of appeal , the court accepted that if the applicant were able to show that the decisions to maintain his detention were vitiated by public law he would succeed in establishing that the detention was unlawful and would have a claim of false imprisonment . However , ORG found that although some of the passages in the review forms were not very happily expressed , they did not involve any legal error . Moreover , as the same conclusion was reached regardless of whether or not reference was made to the question of voluntary return , it appeared that the applicant ’s refusal of this offer played no material part in the assessment of whether detention should be maintained .

Finally , the court found that LAW ) of the ORG added nothing of substance in the present case . In reaching this conclusion , it rejected the applicant ’s assertion that GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE was authority for the proposition that the lack of a realistic prospect of deportation within a defined period rendered detention under LAW ) unlawful .

ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal on DATE .


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)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against ORG of GPE ( “ the Ministry ” ) seeking compensation for damage to his health caused during his service in the police ( “ the compensation ” ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) found in the applicant ’s favour and ordered ORG : ( a ) to pay the applicant the compensation due to him for the period from DATE to DATE in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) ; and ( b ) starting from DATE , to make DATE compensation payments to the applicant of RUB MONEY with subsequent indexation in accordance with the law . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .

NORP However , on DATE , following a request lodged by ORG , the Presidium of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the final judgment by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant ’s claims . The ORG found that the firstinstance court had erroneously applied and interpreted substantive legal provisions which had resulted in their significant violation . The ORG held that there was no basis under domestic law for awarding the applicant the compensation sought and that he was entitled instead to insurance payments . The applicant did not provide the ORG with information as to whether he had applied for those payments and/or was receiving them .

ORG judgment of DATE had been duly enforced until it was quashed by way of supervisory review .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

The applicant is married with CARDINAL children . Prior to his early retirement he had been employed for DATE and had paid his social security contributions to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called “ EWK ” pension .

Along with his application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning his daughter ’s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from , among other things , urinary tract infection and chronic headaches and that she was in need of her parent ’s constant care .

On DATE ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension .

ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension until DATE due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision .

On DATE the applicant ’s employment contract expired . It had been terminated by the employer with DATE notice for reasons attributable to the employer ’s financial situation .

Consequently , on DATE the ORG started to pay the retirement pension in the net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

The applicant was issued with a pensioner ’s identity card marked “ valid indefinitely ” and he continued to receive his pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right .

On an unspecified date ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant ’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . On DATE the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .

On DATE the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant .

By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant ’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .

The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early - retirement pension . He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as he had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care .

A professional lawyer prepared and lodged a cassation appeal against the second - instance judgment on the applicant ’s behalf .

On DATE ORG rejected the cassation appeal ( odrzucił ) on the ground that the lawyer had not properly described the circumstances which would justify the examination of the cassation appeal ( okolicznośći uzasadniające rozpoznanie kasacji ) .

Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of his right to an early - retirement pension .

NORP Throughout the whole period of receiving the EWK pension the applicant did not work .

DATE after the pension had been revoked , the applicant started working on the basis on a mandate contract . He worked for DATE from DATE until DATE .

In DATE the applicant remained unemployed for DATE . On DATE he started to work on a permanent basis .

The Government submitted that the applicant ’s gross DATE income was ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE .

The Government also submitted that the applicant had owned a CARDINAL ha farm and had received some direct payments from ORG in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , QUANTITY ( approx . EUR MONEY ) in DATE , PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE and ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE . They further submitted that “ there were no doubts that the applicant ’s farm had constituted a source of income ” ; they failed however to submit any evidence to support this statement . The applicant submitted that the income from his farm had been “ minimal ” .

The Government also maintained that the applicant ’s wife had a gainful employment . In DATE she earned CARDINAL and PERCENT of the average gross salary in GPE .

The applicant has a son who also worked at the relevant time . He earned PERCENT of the average gross salary in GPE in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE . In DATE he apparently did not work .

Under the relevant laws currently in force , it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension when he turns sixtyfive in DATE .


CASE OF DONPRUT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)

Branko Lubarda;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant is a taxi cab company from PERSON . At the time of the events it employed CARDINAL persons and was functioning on the basis of a licence issued by ORG ( Camera de Licențiere din Republica Moldova ) in DATE .

On DATE ORG issued decision no . DATE by which the applicant company ’s licence was withdrawn in view of irregularities . In particular , the applicant company failed to request the inclusion of the names of CARDINAL new persons employed in administrative positions and of new cars in its licence within the DATE time - limit provided for by law .

On DATE the applicant company initiated court proceedings against ORG seeking the annulment of its order of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant company submitted , inter alia , that the sanction applied to it had been disproportionally harsh and in breach of the company ’s right to property . It argued that CARDINAL persons employed by the company had lost their jobs as a result of the measure applied to it and that the company had suffered losses of MONEY ( ORG ) . The applicant company submitted that it could not comply with the requirement of including all CARDINAL new cars in the licence in DATE because of new regulations instituted by the Government according to which all taxi cabs had to be equipped with receipt printing machines . The company did not have sufficient time to equip all new cars because of the lengthy bureaucratic procedure and because all the taxi cab companies were attempting to do that at the same time . The company submitted that it only managed to equip CARDINAL of its cars with the new equipment .

On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant company . Referring to the alleged breach by the applicant company of the DATE time limit to inform the authorities about the new cars , ORG found inter alia that the formalities linked to the equipment of those cars with receipt printing machines made it impossible for the applicant company to comply with the time - limit . In that context ORG found that all the taxi cab companies were doing the same thing at the time , which created lengthy delays . As to the applicant company ’s failure to inform ORG CARDINAL new employees at the company , ORG held that that breach was minor and could not justify such a severe sanction . Relying on the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG SRL v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) ORG found that the interference with the applicant company ’s right to respect for its possessions had not been proportionate with the legitimate aim pursued and , thus , that the withdrawal of the applicant company ’s licences had been in breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

On DATE ORG lodged an appeal against the above judgment . It does not appear that the applicant company lodged written pleadings with ORG .

On DATE , after an oral hearing , ORG upheld the appeal lodged by ORG , quashed the judgment of ORG and dismissed the applicant company ’s action . ORG held that that according to the law in force , the breaches committed by the applicant company were sufficient ground for withdrawing its licence .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is the executive director of the non - governmental organisation “ NORP ORG ” .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG published on its website some press releases , in which , inter alia , it welcomed the concluding observations of ORG on ORG ( CEDAW ) for GPE and criticised the domestic authorities’ responses to them .

On DATE , PERSON , in her capacity as General Secretary for ORG , ORG , gave an interview which was published in a magazine included with a DATE newspaper . In that interview the following statement was put to her :

“ NORP ORG accuses you of withholding information and lying before the ORG about the position of GPE women , minority women , and whether polygamy is practiced in GPE . ”

PERSON gave the following answer :

“ What they claim is extremely unfair . They lay the country open to criticism ( εκθέτουν τη χώρα ) – because what they claim is false . No other NGO shares the ORG ’s position . We , in our report , may not have fully documented everything , but no one can claim that GPE is an entirely patriarchic country and that nothing has been done all DATE . ”

On DATE the same newspaper published a reply sent by the applicant , as executive director of ORG , to PERSON ’s comments , in which he asked PERSON to document her statements . On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor at the Athens First - Instance Court . He submitted that PERSON in the above - mentioned interview had made false statements about NORP ORG which amounted to slander committed through the press . The applicant expressed his wish to join the proceedings as civil party , initially for the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) , which he later reduced to ORG DATE .

Following an urgent preliminary inquiry , to which PERSON was requested to provide a statement as a suspect in the case , on DATE the public prosecutor at ORG Instance dismissed the applicant ’s criminal complaint and filed ( αρχειοθέτησε ) it away , in accordance with LAW of LAW . In particular , the prosecutor considered that the above - mentioned statements made within the context of the interview , did not constitute facts but value judgments and in any event , they did not overcome the necessary threshold of similar exchanges between various bodies . The prosecutor also added that ORG had used the same expression , that is to say it had described statements included in reports prepared by ORG as “ false ” , in various press releases , in a much more heated tone .

On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant against the order by which his criminal complaint was filed away , the public prosecutor at ORG ordered PERSON ’s criminal prosecution for slander made through the press , considering that the above - mentioned statements were susceptible of harming the applicant ’s honour and reputation , not only individually , but also as representative of ORG .

On the basis of the above , PERSON was indicted and DATE was set as the hearing date before the CARDINAL - member ORG . On DATE PERSON appealed against her indictment . On DATE her appeal was dismissed by ORG .

The new hearing date before the CARDINAL - member GPE Magistrates’ ORG was set for DATE . On DATE , at the beginning of the hearing of the case , PERSON raised for the first time an objection concerning lack of competence of the trial court , arguing that her status as a lawyer meant she could not have her case heard by a CARDINAL - member GPE court . By judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL published on DATE , the said court declared itself not to have competence and referred the case to the CARDINAL - member ORG for misdemeanours ( hereafter the “ ORG ” ) . On DATE the operative part of the judgment was corrected and on DATE , the case file was transmitted to the prosecution service at ORG , marked as extremely urgent .

The new hearing date was set for CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer sent a letter to the court , requesting that the hearing be postponed as he could not attend it owing to other professional obligations . Additionally , GPE , a journalist who had interviewed PERSON , had not been present and the applicant submitted that he considered her testimony essential . As a result , ORG by its judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL postponed the hearing until DATE , citing a material witness ’s absence as the reason . On DATE the case was not heard because the courts had not been sitting owing to the parliamentary elections that had taken place DATE .

The case was again set for hearing on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , PERSON ’s lawyer submitted certificate no . DATE of ORG , according to which PERSON had been elected as a deputy in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE . On that basis , he applied to the court to have the proceedings suspended in accordance with LAW in order for ORG to give permission . The applicant objected to the suspension and filed written submissions in which he argued , inter alia , that it was not necessary for ORG to grant leave for the criminal proceedings against PERSON as the acts for which she was accused had not taken place in the course of her parliamentary activities . He cited in that connection the ORG ’s cases PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . He further stressed that the impugned acts would become timebarred on DATE and requested that the court proceed with examination on the merits of the case .

ORG , after having held deliberations in camera , published judgment no . DATE by which it suspended the criminal proceedings against PERSON until ORG had granted leave and , if such leave were not granted or if no action were taken in the threemonth period from the submission of the prosecutor ’s request to ORG , until her status as a parliamentarian ended . In respect of LAW of the LAW and the applicant ’s objection , the domestic court held the following :

“ ... In addition , since ORG has not granted leave , the prosecution is declared inadmissible if it concerns an offence committed when the defendant was a member of parliament . If , however , criminal proceedings were initiated prior to that , when the defendant was not a member of parliament , then they are suspended until the said leave is granted or until the defendant ’s status as a parliamentarian ends ... It should be noted that in the present case no matter arises concerning the interpretation of Articles CARDINAL , DATE and QUANTITY of the LAW ... and of LAW , so as for the court to rule that ORG ’s leave is not required to conduct this trial because the above - mentioned act did not take place , according to the civil claimant ’s allegations , in the context of her parliamentary duties . That is because the prosecutable offence ( slander for an interview that the defendant gave to a newspaper in her capacity as General Secretary for ORG , ORG ) clearly does not concern a private dispute ; it should be examined if it relates and is linked to the political activity of the defendant - deputy and in general to the exercise of her parliamentary duties . However , examination of this matter and , eventually , any conclusion thereof can only be carried out by the competent authority , ORG ... ”

NORP The decision was published on the date of the hearing , that is to say CARDINAL DATE , and was finalised ( i.e. entered in a special book at the registry of the criminal court ) on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an application with the public prosecutor of ORG requesting an examination of points of law of the said judgment . His request was rejected on the grounds that ORG had rightly suspended the proceedings so that ORG could grant leave , in accordance with LAW . On DATE the case file was transferred to the public prosecutor of ORG , who DATE sent it to the Minister of ORG . On DATE the Minister of ORG transferred the case file to ORG .

On DATE ORG of ORG , having taken a deposition from PERSON , ruled unanimously that the requirements of LAW had been met and thus PERSON ’s immunity should not be lifted . On DATE the Plenary of ORG dismissed the request for leave to continue the criminal proceedings . On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG notified the public prosecutor at ORG of the outcome of ORG ’s vote on granting leave .

On DATE the head of ORG notified ORG that PERSON had ceased to be member of parliament since DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG published judgment no . TIME in which it considered that the offence of which PERSON was accused had become timebarred as more than forty - two months had passed since its alleged commission . It consequently ended the criminal prosecution . The judgment was finalised on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised complaints under LAW .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

The applicants mainly complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

DATE the applicants were charged and subsequently convicted of different criminal offences . Their cases were examined by appeal courts in the absence of the applicants and/or their lawyers . Convictions were upheld .

Information relevant to the criminal proceedings against the applicants appears in the appended table below .


The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


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 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a NORP who lived in GPE until DATE . He claims to have lost CARDINAL relatives to NORP attacks DATE , and to have personally suffered CARDINAL missile attacks DATE . According to his allegations before the ORG , he was directly and personally targeted in the most recent attack , in DATE , as the missile that struck near him on DATE immediately followed an anonymous call on his mobile phone asking him to confirm his name , a ruse by the NORP forces to identify his location . That attack left him severely injured and rendered him paraplegic .

On DATE the applicant was taken to GPE by a humanitarian organisation , ORG ( İnsani PERSON , “ İHH ” ) , along with fortynine other injured civilians from the NORP territories , to have access to better medical care .

NORP In DATE ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) issued the group of NORP with short - term residence permits in view of their continuing medical treatment in GPE .

On DATE the applicant married a NORP national , who was also his physiotherapist . Because he was married to a NORP national , he was granted a long - term temporary residence permit valid until QUANTITY DATE .

On DATE , at TIME , QUANTITY police officers from ORG arrived at the applicant ’s house . They informed the applicant and his wife that his presence was required at the police headquarters for an interview and that he would be brought back afterwards . Once he was at the police headquarters , however , he was verbally informed that his temporary residence permit had been cancelled in accordance with orders received from ORG and that he would soon be deported from GPE . Without being given any further information as to the reasons for the deportation order , when it would be carried out and where he would be deported to , the applicant was placed in the ORG Foreigners’ Admission and ORG attached to ORG .

According to the police record drawn up on DATE at TIME , ORG had decided on DATE to deport the applicant . This decision had been taken at the request of ORG of GPE , which had received intelligence regarding the applicant ’s possible involvement in acts of international terrorism . Neither the ORG ’s deportation order nor the police record in question was served on the applicant .

Upon learning of the applicant ’s detention , on CARDINAL DATE his wife got in touch with a local human rights organisation , PERSON , which in turn contacted the ORG to seek assistance in securing the applicant ’s release and halting his deportation . PERSON also informed the ORG of the poor conditions in which the applicant was being detained , including the fact that he had spent TIME sleeping on a table , that he was not able to use the squat toilets at the detention centre , and that his medical treatment had been stopped on account of his detention .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against ORG before ORG seeking the quashing of the deportation order , and also requested a stay of its execution until the matter had been examined by the administrative court . He maintained before the administrative court that the deportation order was unlawful , in view of his marriage to a NORP citizen and possession of a residence permit valid until DATE . The unlawful deportation order had moreover not been communicated to him at any point , nor had ORG sought his response prior to its delivery . The ORG authorities had similarly not put forward any concrete evidence to demonstrate why his continued presence in GPE was perceived as a threat to national security . The applicant claimed that in the event of his deportation to GPE or elsewhere , his right to life and right to liberty and security would be put at risk , that he would face torture or even death at the hands of NORP forces or their collaborators , and that the unity of his family would be destroyed . Furthermore , his medical treatment would be stopped , causing irreversible harm to his health . The applicant lastly complained that his detention was unlawful , and also maintained that the conditions of his detention at the NORP Foreigners’ Admission and ORG were highly degrading , in view of the lack of basic infrastructure to accommodate people with disabilities in his situation . As he was not able to use the squat toilet available at the place of detention , he had to be taken to a hotel nearby by police officers each time he had to relieve himself . It appears that his wife was occasionally able to accompany them to the hotel . His medical treatment was also stopped during his detention there , which was likely to result in the worsening of his condition .

In a decision delivered on DATE , ORG asked ORG for a copy of its deportation order of DATE , as well as all the information and documents which formed the basis of that decision . Moreover , noting the irreversible nature of the harm that might be caused in the event of the applicant ’s deportation , it ordered a stay of its execution until a further decision .

On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer applied for release from the ORG Foreigners’ Admission and ORG on the basis of ORG decision granting a stay of execution .

Following a decision of ORG on DATE , the applicant was released from the ORG Foreigners’ Admission and ORG .

On DATE the ORG submitted its replies to ORG in relation to the applicant ’s request for the quashing of the deportation order . It stated that the decision to deport had been taken on the basis of a ORG report dated DATE . The report indicated that within the context of ongoing investigations in connection with international terrorism the applicant had been identified as having had contact with some telephone numbers registered in GPE on issues such as “ procurement of arms , new recruits to the group , and measures to be taken to ensure the confidentiality of activities ” . His presence in GPE was therefore perceived as a risk to national security within the meaning of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) and section CARDINAL of the Act on the Residence and Travel of Foreigners in GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . It also submitted a number of supporting documents as an annex . These documents were not made available to the applicant , nor were they later submitted to the ORG .

On DATE ORG decided that there were no elements warranting the suspension of the applicant ’s deportation . It thus reversed its previous decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of ORG lifting the stay of execution of his deportation . He submitted that ORG had not put forward any tangible evidence in support of its allegation that he posed a threat to national security such as to necessitate his deportation from GPE . If ORG went through with its decision , his physical integrity would be irreparably damaged on account of the termination of the medical treatment he was undergoing in GPE . Furthermore , his deportation would disrupt the family life he had since established in GPE , and would deprive him of the vital assistance and care undertaken by his wife . In addition , if deported he would most certainly be subjected to torture by NORP forces and his life would be put at risk . Lastly , the applicant drew the administrative court ’s attention to his pending application to the ORG for refugee status , and also complained of the conditions in which he had been detained DATE at the ORG Foreigners’ Admission and ORG , which had lacked basic amenities to accommodate people with disabilities , such as a non - squat toilet and a lift .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision of DATE , which had effectively lifted the stay of execution of his deportation , without providing any reasons .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had applied to the ORG for refugee status . On CARDINAL DATE he was interviewed by the GPE office of the ORG as part of the refugee status determination process .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was informed by the ORG authorities that , pursuant to the latest decision of ORG , the applicant was requested to leave GPE within DATE , and that if he refused to comply with that request he would be deported forcibly .

On DATE the applicant claimed asylum in GPE . He stated that he had been forced to leave GPE because of the persecution he had faced there . Following an NORP attack on his house in GPE , which had left him severely injured , he had come to GPE to seek medical treatment . This treatment was still ongoing , and in the meantime he had married a NORP citizen . He claimed that although he had never been involved in any acts of violence , he was wanted by GPE as a terrorist . Returning to his country would entail a great risk to his life , if not from NORP attacks then because of the termination of his treatment . He would also face torture if captured by the NORP .

On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer also sent a letter to ORG of ORG , reiterating the grounds of appeal against the applicant ’s deportation . The lawyer emphasised in the letter that the ORG ’s deportation order had not been served on the applicant , and that the administrative proceedings for the annulment of the deportation order were still pending before ORG , which had not yet delivered a judgment on the merits . She referred in this regard to ORG , adopted by the Government of GPE on DATE , which held that the execution of deportation decisions was to be suspended once administrative proceedings seeking to overturn them had been instituted .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative asked the ORG , under LAW of its Rules of Court , to adopt an interim measure to halt the applicant ’s imminent deportation from GPE .

On DATE the President of the ORG to which the case was allocated decided , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to indicate to the Government of GPE , under LAW , that the applicant should not be deported to GPE or GPE until the delivery of a decision by the ORG in his regard .

In the light of the interim measure applied by the ORG , on DATE ORG of ORG ordered that the applicant be granted a DATE temporary residence permit , renewable until further notice .

On DATE ORG quashed the deportation decision of DATE , as the applicant ’s deportation had become unfeasible in view of the interim measure applied by the ORG , which was binding on the NORP authorities . ORG appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG , and on DATE it refused the ORG ’s rectification request .

In the meantime , following a number of interviews , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of the Ministry granted the applicant a temporary residence permit for DATE , apparently renewable , in view of his status as an asylum seeker .

On DATE the applicant informed the NORP authorities that he wanted to withdraw his asylum claim , for reasons unknown to the ORG .

On DATE the General Security Directorate of the Ministry decided to grant the applicant a long - term residence permit , valid for DATE , on the basis of evidence that he had established a genuine family life in GPE . The decision also indicated that this permit would be extended in due course if further inquiries in respect of his marriage demonstrated that he was continuing to maintain a family life in GPE .

In DATE the applicant withdrew his application to the ORG for refugee status in order to avoid being resettled to a safe third country as a result of the refugee status determination process , which might have entailed separation from his wife .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13+6 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;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)

The applicants are a family . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and live in GPE .

On DATE ORG of PERSON ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered , inter alia , the management of the ORG unitary enterprise “ CARDINALth Military Plant ” ( “ the company ” ) to provide the applicants with a suitable dwelling , while keeping their names on the list of persons awaiting housing .

On DATE the judgment came into force .

On DATE ORG opened the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the company had no available residential accommodation .

On DATE , due to the reorganisation of the company ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the enforcement file was sent to ORG for LOC .

On DATE the bailiffs ruled that it was impossible to enforce the judgment in the part relating to the housing , as the new debtor , FGUP CARDINAL ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had no available accommodation . The enforcement proceedings were terminated .

On DATE the Engelsskiy ORG , following the bailiffs’ application , replaced the debtor in the enforcement proceedings from FGUP CARDINAL TSARZ to OAO CARDINAL ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG clarified the judgment of CARDINAL DATE stating that the applicants should be provided with an apartment in GPE .

Several times in DATE the parties applied to ORG for changing the mode of enforcement of the judgment . Each time the courts rejected the applications finding that a payment of the amount representing the cost of an apartment would be equal to modifying the original judgment .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE remained unenforced .

The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise . According to its articles of association , the company ’s aim was to produce goods and render services for ORG of GPE , as well as for meeting other public needs and making a profit .

Under the Order of the Federal Agency for ORG dated DATE the company was joined to ORG CARDINAL ORG ( ORG QUANTITY Tsentralnyy Avtomobilnyy Remontnyy Zavod – ФГУП CARDINAL ORG or ФГУП CARDINAL Центральный Автомобильный Ремонтный PERSON ) . The reorganisation was completed on CARDINAL DATE , and the latter company became the universal successor of the company .

In accordance with the Decree of the President of GPE of DATE and the Decree of ORG of DATE , FGUP CARDINAL ORG was further reorganized into OAO CARDINAL ORG , a publicly - traded private open joint - stock company incorporated under the laws of GPE .


Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

On DATE Týden.cz , an internet news portal , published an article with the headline “ A ‘ European’ dispute . She escaped communism and lost her property . GPE reluctant to compensate her ” ( “ ‘ ORG . Utekla před komunisty a přišla o majetek . ČR ji nechce odškodnit ” ) . The journalist introduced the applicant ’s case by saying that she had been struggling against ORG for DATE because her land had been confiscated following her escape . Up to DATE , she had repeatedly won her case before ORG . However , the issue of her compensation had become more complicated . The article contained the following statement :

“ An appeal to ORG did not help either . So she applied to ORG , which noted ‘ ORG is struck by the fact that in DATE the municipality of GPE was able to take possession of the property on the basis of a DATE judgment that had been quashed because , in the words of LAW , it was incompatible with the principles of a democratic society’ .

Eventually , GPE applied for a review of the judgment , which is the equivalent of an appeal , but was unsuccessful . Since then , complicated negotiations as to how the Government would compensate PERSON have been underway . ‘ I approached the Government Agent with a proposal for settlement regarding the provision of just satisfaction , which among other things is for pecuniary damage because there had been an interference with her property PERSON stated PERSON ’s lawyer [ PERSON ] , adding that she had been deprived of her property in DATE in breach of LAW to ORG .

The ORG is back tracking

‘ That ’s why I suggested providing her with compensation in the amount of the market value of the seized property and compensation for the loss of rent since CARDINAL , [ FAC ] said . But in fact , PERSON was willing , according to him , to accept CARDINAL of the market rent .

However , the ORG refused [ this proposal ] , noting that the Government were prepared to accept only compensation for the plots of land in the amount of their market value in DATE . Thus , it would be essentially lower than the current value ; moreover , such compensation would not include reparation for the period when PERSON had been unable to dispose of the land . ‘ I confess that the ORG ’s approach in this regard seems to me at least dishonest and contravenes the basic principles of justice and our law , too,’ added lawyer [ ORG ] . The Agent of the ORG , or more precisely , ORG for which he works , has refused to comment as the negotiations , according to him , are confidential . ”

The original version of the article is as follows :

“ ORG stížnost k Ústavnímu soudu . Obrátila se proto na ORG soud pro lidská práva . ‘ ORG dvůr je udiven skutečností , PERSON DATE byla obec ORG schopna zmocnit se majetku na základě rozsudku z roku DATE , který CARDINAL zrušen , protože byl podle zákona o soudní rehabilitaci neslučitelný s principy demokratické společnosti,’ konstatoval soud .

PERSON republika nakonec podala k soudu žádost o přezkoumání rozsudku , což je obdoba odvolání , ale bezúspěšně . Od té doby probíhají složitá jednání o tom , jakým způsobem vláda paní PERSON odškodní . ‘ Obrátil jsem se na vládního zmocněnce s návrhem dohody ohledně poskytnutí přiměřeného zadostiučinění , které mimo jiné spočívá ve způsobení majetkové škody , neboť došlo k zásahu do jejích majetkových práv,’ konstatoval advokát ORG [ GPE ] s tím , že její majetek jí ORG DATE odňat v rozporu s LOC protokolem PERSON o lidských právech .

Stát se cuká

‘ Proto jsem navrhl , ORG jí byla poskytnuta náhrada ve výši tržní ceny odňatého majetku a náhrada za ušlý nájem za dobu od roku DATE do PERSON řekl [ PERSON ] PERSON přitom podle jeho slov ochotná přistoupit na desetinu tržního nájemného .

To však stát odmítl s tím , PERSON ochotná přistoupit pouze na náhradu pozemků ve výši jejich tržní ceny v roce DATE . Tedy podstatně nižší než nyní , navíc by tato náhrada neobsahovala odškodnění za dobu , ORG s PERSON nemohla disponovat . ‘ ORG , že postoj vlády mi v tomto ohledu připadá mírně řečeno neseriózní a je v rozporu se základními zásady spravedlnosti QUANTITY GPE dodal advokát [ ORG ] . PERSON státu , respektive ministerstvo spravedlnosti , pro které pracuje , se k tomu odmítl vyjádřit , protože jsou podle něj tato jednání důvěrná . ”


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Prior to its privatisation , the QUANTITY flat at CARDINAL Ulitsa Lavochkina , GPE , had been owned by GPE . Sh . had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the city .

On DATE Sh . died .

On DATE Sh . ’s ex - boyfriend , ORG . , and an unidentified person impersonating PERSON . had their marriage registered in LOC . Un . then applied to the local housing office , where he presented his marriage certificate and was registered as residing in Sh . ’s flat as a tenant . On DATE the title to the flat was transferred to ORG . under the privatisation scheme . On DATE the privatisation transaction and ORG . ’s title to the flat were registered by ORG ( ORG ” ) .

On an unspecified date the prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal investigation into ORG . ’s activities in respect of the flat and on CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE found him guilty of fraud and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment . The flat was transferred to ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG granted claims lodged by the prosecutor on behalf of the city authorities and ordered the annulment of ORG . ’s marriage certificate and the privatisation agreement , and the revocation of his title to the flat . The parties did not appeal against that judgment and it became final .

When ORG . was released in DATE , having served a prison sentence for fraud , the city authorities had not yet informed ORG of the judgments of CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE . ORG . was therefore still officially registered as the flat ’s owner and on DATE he sold the flat to S. On DATE ORG registered the sale agreement and S. ’s title to the flat .

On DATE PERSON sold the flat to the applicant . The sale agreement was registered by ORG on DATE . The applicant moved in and resided in the flat with his girlfriend .

On an unspecified date ORG brought a civil claim against the applicant seeking , inter alia , ( CARDINAL ) the revocation of the applicant ’s title to the flat and his eviction ; and ( CARDINAL ) restitution of the flat to GPE .

On DATE ORG examined the case . It conceded that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat . Nevertheless , relying on Article CARDINAL of the Russian Civil Code , the court granted ORG claims , pointing out that it remained open to the applicant to sue S. in order to have his rights protected . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant leave to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgments of CARDINAL October and DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE , in a single - judge formation , dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant against the judgments of CARDINAL October and DATE .

On DATE the district bailiff ’s service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of CARDINAL October CARDINAL . According to the applicant , he was evicted on DATE .

On DATE the Sergiyev ORG of the GPE Region granted a claim for damages against S. lodged by the applicant and awarded him MONEY ( RUB ) . On DATE the judgment became final .

On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the proceedings were discontinued as it had been impossible to establish S. ’s whereabouts .

According to the Government , on DATE the bailiff ’s superior quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and the enforcement proceedings are still pending .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr L. Meskhoradze of ORG .

NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant and according to the case file , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of unlawful purchase , possession and sale of drugs . According to the record of his personal search , CARDINAL sachets containing a brownish substance were found in the right back pocket of his trousers . The search was carried out on the spot by QUANTITY police officers , who rejected the applicant ’s request for the attendance of independent witnesses , reasoning that there was a risk of him hiding or destroying the evidence . The applicant refused to sign the search record and specified that he had had no drugs on him .

According to the arrest report , which was drawn up immediately after the search , the applicant had multiple injuries on his body and face . When asked about the source of the injuries , the applicant , as noted in the report , claimed that he had fallen to the ground when running away from the police officers .

Later , after his transfer to the police station , an ambulance was called for the applicant . A doctor on duty conducted a visual examination and noted that the applicant had a hematoma on his left eye and several bruises on his chest .

On DATE in prison the applicant was seen by a prosecutor . In the presence of his lawyer , the applicant complained that he had been severely beaten by police officers immediately after his arrest and also at the police station . A special note was drawn up detailing the applicant ’s allegations , including the chain of events , the time , location , duration and methods of his ill - treatment . The applicant alleged that he had been threatened with rape .

DATE , the police officers who had arrested the applicant conducted an examination of the place of his arrest and concluded that the surface was uneven , with lots of rocks and holes .

On DATE the ORG , whilst dropping the drug - dealing charges , convicted the applicant for unlawful possession of drugs in a particularly large quantity and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine . By a decision of DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction in full . Like the trial court , the appeal court , based its conclusions on the statements of the QUANTITY police officers who had arrested the applicant and conducted his personal search . Both instances concluded that the applicant ’s injuries had been the result of him having fallen several times during his attempt to escape .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant . As it appears from the case file , despite his complaints , no criminal proceedings have been instituted into the circumstances of the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment .

On DATE the application was communicated to the respondent Government . An information note , in NORP , on the proceedings after communication of an application was forwarded at the same time to the applicant . It included the information that the nature of all friendly settlement negotiations was strictly confidential . On DATE the Government submitted a friendly - settlement proposal within the framework of the proceedings before the ORG , and on DATE the ORG sent the Government ’s proposal to the applicant .

By their letter of DATE the Government informed the ORG that the applicant had disclosed the details of the friendly - settlement negotiations conducted between the parties to the media , in violation of the confidentiality rule as enshrined in Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG . They accordingly invited the ORG to declare the application inadmissible .

NORP In their letter the Government referred the ORG to an interview of the applicant published by the news agency ORG on DATE . In that interview the applicant provided a brief factual summary of his case and disclosed the specific amount proposed by the Government with a view to securing a friendly settlement . He further claimed that his refusal to accept the compensation offered had “ irritated the Minister of ORG , following which they have sent to GPE documents with distorted facts . ”

It appears that even before that date , on DATE , another media source – news portal PERSON , published another interview with the applicant in which the latter likewise discussed the ORG ’s friendlysettlement proposal and referred to the specific amount proposed by the Government . The article was accompanied by scanned copies of the relevant letters from the ORG .


Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

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

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

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

The applicant is a NORP national who has certain family ties to GPE and also has NORP citizenship . The applicant was wanted in GPE from DATE as he was suspected of aggravated extortion committed in DATE . CARDINAL other persons , including the applicant ’s brother , were convicted in GPE on DATE for having participated in the same crime of which the applicant was suspected . A prison sentence of DATE and DATE was imposed on the brother and a sentence of DATE and DATE on the CARDINAL other perpetrators . The NORP authorities tried to locate the applicant through ORG , issuing a LAW alert about him .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) ordered the applicant to be detained with a view to his extradition . The applicant complained about this decision to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) which rejected his complaint on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for release from detention . The applicant complained about this decision to ORG which , on DATE , rejected his complaint .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s second request for release from detention . The applicant did not lodge a complaint against this decision with ORG .

NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities filed a request with ORG , asking them to extradite the applicant to GPE .

On DATE the applicant was interrogated by ORG ( keskusrikospoliisi , centralkriminalpolisen ) . The applicant opposed the extradition .

On DATE , in accordance with LAW , ORG asked ORG to give a statement on whether the possible extradition would be in conformity with domestic legislation and the applicable international extradition treaties .

NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted his comments to ORG on the possible extradition . He claimed that , as a NORP citizen , he should be treated as a NORP citizen because NORP citizens could not be extradited according to the domestic law . He also claimed that he could not be extradited to GPE because the conditions in NORP detention facilities and prisons were contrary to LAW . He would not have a fair and public trial there within a reasonable time , he would not be presumed innocent and he would be kept in pre - trial detention for a long time .

On DATE ORG submitted its statement to ORG . It found that the request for extradition could be granted . The applicant was suspected of aggravated extortion committed together with CARDINAL other persons . These QUANTITY persons had been convicted in GPE and sentenced to imprisonment on DATE . The crime of which the applicant was suspected was such that , according to domestic law , the applicant could be extradited . The extradition was based on a detention order issued by a court . The fact that the applicant was a NORP citizen did not prevent the extradition . No such grounds were thus shown to exist on the basis of which the applicant ’s extradition to GPE , due to personal circumstances or special humanitarian reasons , could be considered unreasonable .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant could be extradited to GPE for trial . The decision stated that , after the decision had been served to the NORP authorities , they had DATE to come and collect the applicant and transfer him to GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG , requesting also that Rule CARDINAL be applied .

On DATE the ORG refused to apply Rule CARDINAL to prevent the applicant ’s extradition from GPE . The applicant was requested to inform the ORG whether he wished to maintain his application .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he wished to maintain his application with the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE , GPE where he arrived on DATE . He was then taken to PERSON , brought before a judge and detained on suspicion of attempted extortion . From DATE he was detained in isolation in prison for DATE . Thereafter he was moved to another prison for DATE , where he shared a cell with CARDINAL other inmates . In DATE the applicant was transferred to an open department and again in DATE to a labour facility . In DATE the applicant was released by virtue of an amnesty granted by ORG .

After his release , the applicant returned to GPE .

Extradition to and from GPE takes place in accordance with LAW ( laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta , lagen om utlämning för brott , Act no . CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time ) . According to sections CARDINAL and QUANTITY , ORG decides on extradition . If the person to be extradited opposes it , the Ministry must ask ORG to give a statement on whether the possible extradition is in conformity with domestic legislation and the applicable international extradition treaties which are binding on GPE . If ORG finds that there is an obstacle to the extradition , it can not be carried out .

ORG on Human Rights Practices for DATE in GPE of DATE provided the following :

“ Principal human rights abuses included severe overcrowding , inhuman conditions , and disrepair in the prison system ; violence against women ; and trafficking in persons .

Prison conditions continued to be poor , as the government did not adequately maintain aging facilities and provided insufficient resources for the prison system .

Overcrowding was a significant problem despite the government ’s efforts to build more prison facilities . According to government figures , the total prisoner population as of DATE exceeded design capacity by CARDINAL prisoners , or PERCENT ( the prison ombudsman ’s DATE report defined PERCENT overcrowding as " critical " ) . Additionally , many necessities were lacking and many prisoners depended on visitors for enough food to reach the DATE minimum caloric intake .

Prisoner - on - prisoner violence continued to be a DATE problem , partially due to the lack of a separate , high - security prison for violent criminals . A high percentage of prisoners reportedly used drugs .

Fire hazards and violence continued to plague the prison system . In DATE there were CARDINAL deaths due to violence , and fires in prisons were reported . In DATE a cell fire killed CARDINAL prisoners in GPE . In DATE prisoners perished in a cell fire in FAC in GPE . The fires started due to handcrafted heaters that set makeshift partitions on fire . Initial investigations revealed that fire extinguishers were not adequately maintained in both facilities .

In general overcrowding and understaffing in some facilities resulted in problems related to sanitation , ventilation , temperature , lighting , access to potable water , and health . Supervision of medical care moved to ORG , which implemented a pilot system in DATE to provide basic and emergency medical care to a prison in rural GPE that housed CARDINAL inmates . An Anti - Tuberculosis Commission report confirmed CARDINAL cases of tuberculosis in the prison population in DATE . ”

According to the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur PERSON PERSON on torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in GPE of DATE ( A / HRC/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/Add.CARDINAL ) :

“ Although some efforts have been made to improve overall conditions in prisons and prevent overcrowding , the conditions in some detention facilities , particularly ORG and ORG ( PERSON , known as COMCAR ) , amount to inhuman and degrading treatment . The overcrowding , the non - separation of pre - trial and convicted detainees as well as the limited access to medical services is of concern in practically all of the places visited . A comprehensive reform of the whole administration of justice system , aimed at the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders , should be a high priority . ”


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .

The applicant was employed by “ Raška Holding Kompanija A.D. u restrukturiranju ” , a socially / ORG - owned company based in ORG ( hereinafter DATE “ the debtor ” ) .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , and DATE ORG adopted CARDINAL judgments in the applicant ’s favour according to which the debtor was ordered to pay certain sums .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , the applicant lodged applications for the enforcement of the above judgments with ORG .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , the court allowed the applications and issued enforcement ’s orders .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

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

The applicants complained under LAW excessive length of their pre - trial detention . They further complained under LAW . In particular , in application no . ORG the applicant argued that a court had examined appeals against the detention orders in his and his counsel ’s absence , and in application no . MONEY the applicant submitted that his appeal against a detention order had not been examined “ speedily ” .


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

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

The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The third applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . The fourth applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . They live in GPE .

The applicants are members of ORG . They are lawyers with the “ Biznes i NORP ” law firm . At the relevant time , the firm ’s premises comprised a reception area , CARDINAL offices and a conference room . The first and second applicant shared an office . The fourth applicant and lawyer PERSON each had an individual office . The third and fifth applicants shared an office with lawyer GPE Each lawyer had his or her own computer . There was also CARDINAL more computer shared by all lawyers .

On DATE a criminal investigation was opened into bribe - taking by court bailiffs . CARDINAL of the charges involved ORG ( the “ Factory ” ) , a ORG unitary enterprise , and bailiff T. According to the Government , in DATE the ORG ’s director PERSON had paid MONEY ( RUB ) to a bailiff as a bribe . The actual bagman for the bribe cash had been bailiff T. In order to legalise “ the transaction ” , T. had asked his brother GPE to sign a fictitious legal assistance contract with the ORG .

On DATE ORG signed a legal assistance contract with the ORG in respect of legal advice on tax and other matters .

According to the Government , on an unspecified date the investigator questioned PERSON and T. Both of them admitted to having been involved in the bribery scheme .

On DATE ORG issued a search warrant authorising a search of the premises of the “ Biznes i NORP ” law firm . The entire reasoning read as follows :

“ On DATE a criminal case was opened into [ aggravated bribery ] against ORG bailiffs’ service no . DATE . The investigation established that the ORG unitary enterprise ORG and the ‘ Biznes i Pravo’ law firm had entered into a fictitious contract in order to cover up the bribery . The investigator is seeking authorisation for a search of the LOC of the ‘ PERSON i Pravo’ law firm with a view to seizing documents that may be relevant to the case .

[ The court ] considers that the investigator ’s request is justified and must be granted because there are reasons to believe that documents of the ‘ PERSON i Pravo’ law firm may contain evidence relevant to the criminal case . ”

On DATE the investigator conducted a search of the applicants’ premises . The applicants and CARDINAL attesting lay witnesses were present during the search .

According to the applicants , they voluntarily handed over the documents sought by the investigators ; nevertheless , all the offices , including those of the applicants who had no relationship with the ORG , were searched . The investigators took away all the desktop and laptop computers and copied the entire contents of their hard disks . The computers were returned DATE .

The applicants appealed against ORG decision of DATE . They submitted that the contract with ORG had been signed by ORG in his personal capacity as a lawyer rather than by the “ Biznes i NORP ” law firm and that there had been no grounds to search the entire premises of the law firm . Moreover , ORG had declared that contract to be fictitious even before a judgment had been handed down . The information held on their computers had been protected by the attorney - client privilege and the search and seizure had amounted to a gross violation of LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal , finding that the search warrant had been lawful and justified . In ORG view , ORG had not found that the contract was fictitious but had merely mentioned that the opinion of the investigation was that it had been fictitious .


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

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

He complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings which lasted DATE and DATE ( DATE and DATE ) for CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction .