Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Rousseva;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

As is apparent from the documents in the file , the applicant moved from GPE to GPE in DATE together with her parents . In DATE she obtained temporary residency status . Before the move , the applicant ’s father had been the deputy chair of ORG and later a member of a political movement which was critical of the domestic political regime . It appears that , because of her father ’s political activity , members of her family were subjected to persecution in GPE and that in DATE the applicant ’s aunt was tortured and murdered in prison .

The applicant started studying at a secondary school with an intensive foreign languages curriculum in DATE . Her father opened his own construction business in GPE .

On DATE the NORP authorities charged both of the applicant ’s parents with aggravated embezzlement of public funds amounting to MONEY , allegedly committed DATE and DATE . The NORP prosecutor ordered their detention in relation to those charges and filed a request for their extradition with the NORP authorities .

The following circumstances are undisputed between the parties .

On DATE the applicant , aged CARDINAL at the time , was alone at home . At TIME about QUANTITY police officers arrived at the family apartment . On entering the apartment the officers informed the applicant that they had come to arrest her parents . She called her parents on the telephone . It appears from the documents before the domestic courts that at that time , the parents were out shopping accompanied by their legal representative , who returned home with them . This took some time because of heavy traffic . In the meantime the officers prohibited the applicant from moving around the apartment and interrogated her in the absence of a social worker and a psychologist , despite having seen her identity document , which indicated her age .

The applicant ’s parents were arrested as soon as they arrived home . The record of a court hearing in the domestic proceedings for damages ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) indicates that the GPE legal representative was present during the arrest . The lawyer stated that the police officers had not allowed the parents to collect personal belongings from the flat but that , as far as he could recall , they had allowed the applicant to hand them some personal items from the flat . He did not know where the police officers had taken the applicant ’s parents but said that he thought that they had been taken to ORG . In any event , he had visited them DATE but could not remember exactly where . The legal representative also stated that during DATE his task had been to circulate between the CARDINAL different prisons where the applicant ’s parents were detained in order to organise their defence . He stated that he could not describe the state of the applicant at the time of the arrest , his task having been to defend her parents . He did not know what had happened to the applicant and had not seen her after her GPE arrest .

An order for the applicant ’s GPE detention for TIME was issued by the police on DATE and they were placed in police custody for that period . Upon their application for judicial review of that detention order , ORG set it aside the following day , finding it flawed as it did not indicate any legal grounds for the detention . Immediately upon their release from police custody the applicant ’s parents were served with a prosecutor ’s order for their detention for TIME in connection with the extradition request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They were detained on the spot .

On DATE , at CARDINAL separate hearings , ORG extended their detention for DATE . The applicant ’s father was taken to FAC and her mother to ORG .

During and after the court hearings on DATE the applicant ’s parents were represented by the same lawyer who had been present during their arrest and was a friend and neighbour of the family .

The parties dispute what took place at the hearing when the judge enquired about the care measures in place in relation to the applicant . According to the latter , when her mother was asked by the judge through an interpreter whether there was anyone who could take care of her child , her mother replied by shaking her head . In GPE nodding one ’s head signifies “ no ” and shaking it means “ yes ” . According to the applicant , the judge , having interpreted the mother ’s response as “ yes ” , noted in the record of the hearing : “ The child has someone to take care of her ” .

The Government , in contrast , pointed to the record of the hearing , which indicated that the applicant ’s mother had replied that there was someone who could take care of her child . In their view , this was evidence of the mother ’s reply . In addition , they cited an excerpt of the court ’s record where the applicant ’s mother had addressed the court in the following terms : “ I am very surprised as I have worked as an associate professor , with a doctorate in science , for DATE , and for some reason , they want to accuse me of something that happened out there , and I ’ve been living here for DATE . We came here so that my children could study in GPE , in a democratic country , because GPE is a dictatorship ; a fascist regime has begun . There is someone to take care of my child . ” According to the court record of the hearing , the mother ’s statement had been preceded by an intervention by the prosecutor , who had indicated that it was necessary to comply with the requirements of LAW , so that if the family had no relatives or friends to care for the child , the municipality had to be informed with a view to placing her in a child - care centre , kindergarten or boarding facility ( интернат ) .

On an appeal by the applicant ’s parents , ORG lifted the detention orders in CARDINAL separate decisions on DATE . The applicant ’s parents were released on bail and returned home to the applicant DATE .

The request for their extradition to GPE was ultimately refused on CARDINAL DATE by ORG . During those proceedings they were represented by the same lawyer . The refusal became final on CARDINAL DATE as it had not been appealed against . The court found that the criminal proceedings against the applicants’ parents were connected to the father ’s political activities and that the extradition request had been made with the aim of persecuting and punishing him for his political beliefs .

It is alleged that the applicant ’s parents were arrested so rapidly that they did not manage to leave any money for her , or to give her any instructions as to whom to turn to or how to go about caring for herself . The officers did not tell the applicant for how long they were taking her parents away , where they would be taken or for what reason . According to the applicant , they indicated that they would either lock her parents in prison or deport them to GPE . Both prospects caused the applicant anguish as she had heard that prisons were horrible both in GPE and in GPE . She also feared that her parents might be subject to the same treatment in GPE that members of her family had endured in GPE .

According to the applicant , no one took care of her after her GPE arrest . She only found MONEY ( about QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) in the apartment , which she used for bus tickets to go to school and for food . The money ran out fast and during DATE of her GPE absence she did not have anything to eat . She suffered insomnia and , when she could sleep , had nightmares . Before her GPE arrest , her mother had been the one to wake her up in the TIME .

She permanently dreaded being herself sent back to GPE , where her relatives were in prison and her grandparents had been made homeless for having opposed the regime .

She alleged that she had gone several times to the police ’s office for foreigners , looking for her parents . She had also tried to telephone people in GPE to ask for help . Both steps proved unsuccessful .

The applicant had to ask people in the street how to reach her school as , before the arrest , her father had always taken her there . At some stage during her GPE detention a stray dog bit the applicant on the leg . She did not know what to do or how to seek help . Her mother took her to hospital on DATE , DATE after she was released from detention , fearing that the wound might have become infected .

The Government alleged that it had not been proven that the applicant had been left alone , without an adult carer , during the period in question . The Government stressed that the applicant ’s parents had been represented throughout by the same legal representative , who was , moreover , a neighbour and friend . When questioned in the context of the domestic proceedings in the applicant ’s case about the exchanges in court on DATE , the lawyer indicated that he had no recollection of them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant , with her GPE agreement , brought proceedings for damages under LAW before ORG . She directed her claim against the FAC regional office of ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , and sought to establish the responsibility of the authorities that had left her unattended during her GPE detention in DATE , in breach of LAW .

In a decision of DATE the court invited her to specify the grounds of her claim and to indicate the specific actions , the particular respondent and the type of damage caused to her . She specified that she was seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage stemming from the authorities’ failure to organise support and care for her during her GPE detention .

On DATE the court reclassified her claim under section CARDINAL of ORG . It further invited her to specify the names of the officials against whom she had directed her claim , and to show that she had paid the court fees of CARDINAL , corresponding to PERCENT of the total amount of damages sought . The applicant lowered the value of her claim on DATE , paid the corresponding court fees in the amount of about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and submitted additional proof to the court .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG terminated the proceedings as it found that the applicant had failed to correct the irregularities in her claim as directed by the court on DATE .

The applicant appealed on CARDINAL DATE to ORG , submitting that the respondents were the legal entities specified in her legal claim of DATE as amended , given that they had been represented by different individuals at different points in time . The appellate court upheld the lower court ’s decision on DATE .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , submitting that her claim was directed against the different institutions as legal persons , as she could not know the names of the individual officials who had failed to provide her with care . She also described her condition after her GPE detention . On DATE ORG quashed the lower court ’s decision , finding that it had wrongly instructed the applicant to specify individual respondents . It remitted the case to the first - instance court , ORG , for a fresh examination .

On DATE the applicant further specified her claim before ORG , in particular describing her circumstances in the immediate aftermath of her GPE arrest and the continuing psychological trauma which she had suffered as a result . She submitted that during the hearing on DATE on the extension of her GPE detention , the judge had wrongly interpreted her mother ’s response to the question posed regarding her care .

A psychiatric and psychological report was prepared in the context of the court proceedings in DATE . The report established that the applicant was depressed and at times aggressive . This was attributed to the shock she had experienced in relation to her GPE detention and the ensuing uncertainty . She showed signs of accumulated tension , fear , worries , disappointment and anger towards the officials who had abandoned her to her own devices following her GPE arrest . She had no interest in her daily life or in the future and had become withdrawn as a result of her loss of confidence in the justice system . CARDINAL additional medical expert reports were prepared in DATE . They found that the applicant was suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder , which was probably the result of what she had gone through after her GPE arrest . The doctors stated in court that no improvement was likely in her case and that her condition was expected to become chronic . Another medical report ordered by the court in DATE confirmed that the applicant was suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder and that , while she had been a healthy and energetic child prior to her GPE arrest , she had experienced frequent bouts of depression thereafter and had succumbed to overwhelming feelings of self - pity , insecurity and futility of effort and engagement .

The applicant ’s GPE lawyer , who had attended the hearings relating to their detention in DATE , testified on DATE that he did not know what had happened to the applicant during her GPE arrest ; nor could he remember anything about the circumstances relating to the question and answer in court on DATE concerning her care . On DATE , during the same proceedings , the applicant ’s teacher testified that she could not remember the applicant being absent from or having gone hungry at school . The girl had not complained to her about anything at the time .

ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim on DATE , finding that it had not been proven that she had been left alone while her parents had been detained in DATE . The court also held that , in DATE following the court hearing on DATE , the applicant ’s mother had not sought to have the record of the hearing rectified , even though it was legally possible to do so .

Furthermore , the court held that on DATE ORG had accepted that the mother had replied in the affirmative to the judge ’s question regarding whether there had been anyone to care for the applicant . That question had been transmitted to the applicant ’s mother with the assistance of an interpreter . Consequently , the court concluded that it had not been incumbent on the criminal justice system to act in any other way in order to protect the applicant .

The court further accepted fully the conclusions of the psychological reports on the applicant ’s state of chronic post - traumatic stress disorder after the DATE events . However , it found that the only evidence supporting the applicant ’s claim that she had been left alone in DATE was her GPE testimony and that there were no other pieces of evidence in support of this assertion . Given that the mother had stated during the hearing on her detention that someone had been taking care of the child , the conditions set out in LAW had not been met and , therefore , the institutions involved in the criminal proceedings had not been obliged to pursue steps towards taking the applicant into care .

The applicant appealed to ORG . She again challenged the findings of the lower court about her mother ’s reply during the court hearing on DATE . She also submitted that her mother had not been in a position to see the record of the hearing , given that she had been taken back immediately to the remand prison . She further asserted that the authorities had been under an obligation to verify at the time of the arrest on DATE and immediately afterwards whether care had been available to her , and that in any event they should not have waited DATE to enquire about her situation for the first time during the court hearing . She submitted that her current state of health was the direct result of the shock and stress she had endured in connection with the arrest and the lack of provision of care . She paid about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in court fees .

The appellate court confirmed the lower court ’s decision on DATE . It found that , even if the applicant had been left alone after the arrest , responsibility for that could not be attributed to the police , the prosecuting authorities or the court , given that her mother had stated that there had been someone to take care of her . In addition , the post - traumatic stress disorder from which it had been established that she suffered could have been the result of additional factors not directly related to her GPE arrest .

ORG rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant in a final decision of DATE , finding no grounds for allowing the appeal to be pursued .

The applicant was granted humanitarian status on DATE and refugee status on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant has a wife and CARDINAL children who live in GPE . He is a practising NORP . Since DATE he had regularly gone to GPE for DATE jobs . In DATE the applicant again went to GPE and remained in the GPE region until his arrest on DATE .

On DATE the investigator at ORG , GPE , charged the applicant , in absentia , with incitement to national , racial , ethnic or religious hatred , and producing and disseminating documents containing threats to national security and public order ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( d ) and QUANTITY ( a ) of LAW ) . The decision stated , in particular , that PERSON , an NORP national , had formed an organised criminal group in DATE which a view to disseminating ideas based on NORP religious extremism . According to the decision , the applicant had been involved in the group while working as the head of a bakery and being responsible for providing other members of the group with work and housing .

On DATE the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s placement in detention . On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of the Bukhara Region issued an international search warrant in respect of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by police in GPE . The record of arrest , drawn up on the same date and signed by the applicant , stated that he had been arrested in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a person wanted by the NORP authorities on suspicion of criminal offences under LAW § CARDINAL ( d ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW .

On DATE the applicant was questioned and stated as follows . In GPE he had worked as a builder . As it had become difficult to find a job there , in DATE he went to GPE for the first time to look for a job . For DATE he lived in LOC unofficially , and he then returned to GPE . DATE he went to GPE DATE for DATE , during which he worked unofficially on construction sites in LOC . He never applied for authorisation in respect of his temporary stays in GPE . In DATE he went again to GPE . He went to the village of GPE , in LOC , where he found lodgings in a mobile home with CARDINAL other builders . In DATE he worked at a construction site in the town of ORG . During DATE he had occasional jobs in GPE , including some building work for its residents , and cleaning the streets . On DATE the applicant went to the GPE railway station in GPE as he wanted to return to GPE . He bought a ticket to LAW , where he planned to buy tickets for the remainder of the journey . However , before he could board the train he was approached by CARDINAL men in civilian clothes who told him they were police officers and presented their badges . They informed him that he was on a wanted list in GPE and asked him to go with them to the police station located near the railway station , which he did . According to the applicant , when he spoke on the telephone with his wife in DATE , she had said that police officers had asked her about his whereabouts , but they had not explained why they were looking for him . In GPE he had not been persecuted for political reasons or convicted of any criminal offences , and he did not apply for asylum in GPE . The applicant stated that he did not know in relation to what imputed offence he had been placed on the wanted list .

On DATE the NORP ORG received from ORG a request for the applicant to be detained pending receipt of its extradition request .

Also on DATE , the prosecutor of LOC of GPE ordered the applicant ’s detention on the ground of LAW ( “ the FAC ” ) . In that decision the prosecutor referred to the following elements : the applicant had been arrested in GPE on suspicion of a number of criminal offences on the basis of an international search warrant issued by the NORP authorities ; ORG had issued an arrest warrant in respect of him ; the offences imputed to the applicant were punishable in GPE by DATE of imprisonment ; and the applicant had gone into hiding . The decision did not specify a term for the applicant ’s detention . The applicant was immediately placed in GPE no . CARDINAL in GPE . He was not provided with a copy of the prosecutor ’s decision .

On DATE ORG ( “ FMS ” ) informed the prosecutor of GPE that the applicant had not applied for asylum in GPE .

On DATE the GPE FMS informed the prosecutor of LOC of GPE that the applicant had applied neither for NORP citizenship nor asylum . He had had residence registration in ORG DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but he had not been registered in GPE since then .

On DATE the GPE Region FMS informed the prosecutor of GPE that the applicant was not a NORP citizen and nor had he applied for asylum , and that he had had residence registration in ORG DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but had not been registered in GPE since then .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel appealed against the detention order of DATE . She argued , in particular , that it was unlawful as the detention had been ordered by a prosecutor and not by a court , and that LAW was inapplicable to the applicant at that stage of the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG that the applicant had had residence registration in ORG DATE and DATE . He had neither acquired NORP citizenship nor applied for asylum .

On DATE ORG of GPE received a request for the applicant ’s extradition from the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE . The request contained assurances that the applicant would not be persecuted on grounds of his political convictions , ethnic origin , religion or nationality ; that he would be provided with legal assistance ; and that the criminal proceedings against him would be conducted in full compliance with the laws of GPE . Furthermore , the applicant would not be extradited to CARDINAL ORG or be subject to criminal proceedings unrelated to the offences in respect of which his extradition was sought .

Also on DATE , the prosecutor of LOC of GPE ordered the applicant ’s detention during the extradition proceedings . He referred to the extradition request received from the NORP authorities and relied on Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Code of Criminal Procedure . The decision did not specify a term for the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel submitted an additional statement of appeal against the detention order of DATE . She complained , in particular , that GPE had not ratified LAW DATE to ORG and , therefore , in relations between GPE and GPE the old version of LAW should be applied , without the amendments made by LAW . Therefore , the applicant should have been released on DATE , a month after his arrest , as provided by LAW .

On DATE , ORG of GPE postponed the hearing on the appeal lodged by the applicant ’s counsel to CARDINAL DATE in order to allow time for the applicant to receive a copy of the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of the said decision .

On DATE the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s counsel ’s appeal against the detention order of DATE . The court found that the applicant had been arrested in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that on DATE he had been detained pending receipt of the extradition request on the basis of LAW .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to ORG . She maintained , inter alia , that LOC had failed to address the arguments she had raised in the appeal statement .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , referring to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , Articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Minsk Convention , and the DATE LAW . The court found the prosecutor ’s request for the extension of the applicant ’s detention well - founded as his extradition had been requested in relation to charges concerning offences punishable under both NORP and NORP law ; the applicant was a national of GPE with no permanent place of residence in GPE ; and he had tried to abscond from the NORP authorities . The court also noted that the extradition check in respect of the applicant had not been completed .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel appealed against that decision .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It also found that ORG of GPE duly addressed the arguments raised by the applicant ’s counsel on appeal .

On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of GPE , referring to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , ordered the applicant ’s release because the DATE maximum period of detention permitted by domestic law had expired .

Also on DATE , ORG office refused to extradite the applicant to GPE , finding that the offences punishable under LAW of GPE were not regarded as criminal offences under NORP criminal law . In so far as he was charged with offences punishable under LAW ( d ) of LAW of GPE , there was no corpus delicti in the applicant ’s actions for the purposes of LAW ( incitement to hatred and hostility , and degrading treatment ) .

On DATE police officers escorted the applicant from the GPE to the LOC police station , where the prosecutor ’s release order of CARDINAL September CARDINAL was handed to him . However , the applicant was immediately re - arrested on suspicion of a breach of the residence rules under LAW , and administrative removal proceedings were initiated in respect of him .

In the records of the administrative offence and the administrative arrest , signed by the applicant , both dated DATE , he stated that he did not agree with the arrest .

By a telegram of DATE the Prosecutor of the Russian Federation informed the prosecutor of GPE that on DATE the NORP authorities’ request for the extradition of the applicant had been refused . The telegram further stated that it was necessary to take a decision regarding the applicant ’s further detention and to verify the legality of his presence on the territory of GPE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE refused to accept the case for examination because the case file contained no information about the outcome of either the extradition proceedings or the refugee - status proceedings

On DATE the case file on the applicant ’s administrative offence was submitted to ORG .

In written pleadings filed with ORG of GPE the applicant ’s counsel argued that the applicant ’s removal to GPE would be unlawful . She stated , in particular , that the applicant , as a person accused of participation in a banned religious activity , faced torture and other forms of ill - treatment if expelled to GPE . The applicant ’s counsel also referred to the ORG ’s case - law concerning expulsion to GPE and recent reports by international NGOs , according to which detainees charged with banned religious activities were subjected to systematic torture and other forms of ill - treatment in GPE . She further stated that the applicant had applied for refugee status in GPE and the proceedings were still pending ; in accordance with LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW , the applicant could not be removed from GPE until the end of those proceedings .

On DATE the ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of a breach of the residence rules , imposed a fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ) and ordered his administrative removal from GPE . It found , in particular , that the applicant had arrived in GPE on DATE with a view to finding a job . However , he had made no attempt to regularise his stay in GPE by applying either for a temporary residence permit or for a work permit . Furthermore , he had not left GPE upon the expiry of the maximum DATE period for which foreign nationals who did not require a visa were authorised to stay in GPE . The applicant admitted at the hearing that he had been residing in GPE unlawfully , but stated that for DATE of time he had been unable to regularise his situation because his employer had had possession of his documents . However , he had received his passport at DATE and had still not taken any steps to regularise his residence . The court further stated that when imposing the penalty it had taken into account the applicant ’s situation , including his lack of a stable income and residence in GPE , the length of his stay in GPE without a permit , and the fact that he had been aware that a permit was required .

NORP The court found that the applicant ’s allegations regarding a risk of ill - treatment in the event of his removal to GPE were “ based on assumptions ” and were “ not corroborated by the case - file materials ” . It also dismissed the applicant ’s counsel ’s argument that the applicant could not be subject to administrative removal because he had a pending application for refugee status . The court stated in this connection that on CARDINAL DATE the GPE FMS had dismissed his application and , as of the date of the hearing , the applicant had not appealed against that decision . The court further held that , taking into account the applicant ’s financial situation and also the need to ensure his removal from the territory of GPE , the applicant was to be placed in custody until the “ resolution of the matter relating to his administrative removal ” . Following that decision the applicant was placed in a detention centre for foreigners in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel appealed against the decision of DATE to ORG . She reiterated the arguments she had advanced before the first - instance court and complained that the first - instance court had not made an adequate assessment of the risk of ill - treatment to which the applicant might be subjected if he was removed to GPE . She pointed out that ORG of GPE had refused to examine the reports by international NGOs relating to the human rights situation in GPE and had ignored the ORG ’s position on the matter .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s request for the application of interim measures under LAW and indicated to the ORG that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE ORG instructed the prosecutor of GPE to comply with the ORG ’s indications regarding interim measures under LAW .

On DATE the prosecutor of GPE instructed the prosecutor of LOC of GPE to apply to ORG of GPE for the suspension of the applicant ’s removal to GPE in view of the application by ORG CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of GPE requested ORG of GPE to suspend the applicant ’s removal to GPE following the application by ORG CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE , the GPE FMS informed ORG that the applicant was not registered in the migration register and nor had he been issued with a work permit .

Also on DATE , ORG upheld the decision of DATE , finding it lawful and justified . It held that the first - instance court had been right in finding that the applicant ’s actions had constituted an administrative offence . The appeal court further dismissed the argument that the applicant could not be subject to administrative detention in view of his application for asylum as ( i ) he had applied for asylum only after being arrested ; and ( ii ) the reasons he had put forward for his reluctance to return to GPE did not constitute well - founded fears of persecution on grounds of his religion , nationality , ethnic origin , belonging to a particular social group , or political convictions .

DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the suspension of the execution of the decision of DATE pending the examination of the application by the prosecutor of LOC of GPE .

On DATE ORG returned the application by the prosecutor of LOC of GPE without examination on the ground that under LAW the prosecutor was not authorised to apply for the suspension of a final judicial decision .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel sent an application to ORG of GPE pursuant to LAW offences . She sought clarification regarding the execution of the decision of DATE in the light of the application by ORG CARDINAL of ORG . ORG of GPE received the application on DATE . In the absence of a response , the applicant ’s counsel resubmitted the application on DATE .

On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant ’s counsel informing him that the court found that there were no grounds to consider her application under LAW . Therefore , it was to be examined as a general application . The court advised the applicant ’s counsel to contact the competent executive authorities with her queries concerning the execution of the decision of DATE . The letter was sent on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE .

On DATE the GPE ORG refused to grant him refugee status . The ORG noted that although the applicant had substantiated his application by an alleged risk of persecution on religious grounds , he stated that he had left GPE for economic reasons . However , he feared that if he returned there the NORP law - enforcement agencies would extract from him under torture a confession to crimes he had not committed . It further analysed at length the applicable NORP laws on the prohibition of torture and freedom of religion , as well as information on the co - existence of various religions in GPE . The ORG noted that the applicant had not left GPE on any of the grounds listed in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . Moreover , it appeared that his wish to not return to GPE was based not on a fear of being persecuted on grounds of religion , nationality , ethnic origin , belonging to a particular social group , or political convictions , but rather on his fear of being subjected to punishment for the offences he was charged with in GPE . Therefore , he did not meet the criteria set out in LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It endorsed the reasoning of that decision and added that although , according to the applicant , DATE he had regularly come to GPE for DATE jobs , he had only had a work permit for the period DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG of GPE . He argued that as criminal proceedings had been instituted against him in GPE , his fears of persecution on religious grounds were well - grounded .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The court noted that although the human rights situation in GPE was “ ambiguous ” , it was a party to numerous international treaties on the protection of human rights and regularly submitted reports to the ORG on its compliance with such treaties . The court further stated that a decision concerning refugee status should be taken not on the basis of the general situation in the country , but on the basis of the applicant ’s specific circumstances . The ORG had thus been right to dismiss the application as the applicant had failed to provide any evidence that in the event of his return to GPE there was a real risk of his being subjected to ill - treatment .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG . The appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE .

The ORG has not been informed of the outcome of the appeal proceedings .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant company , ORG , is a NORP limited liability company which has its seat in PERSON . The second and third applicants , PERSON Kyösti PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who live in GPE and GPE respectively . The applicants are 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 second and third applicants are the owners and the only board members of the applicant company . The applicant company was in the transport business in GPE . Before returning from GPE , the tanks of the company trucks were normally filled with diesel and legally imported into GPE . Such diesel was tax and customs free and there was no obligation to inform the authorities about it . However , such diesel could not be used in any other vehicles unless customs and excise duties were paid .

DATE some of the diesel brought to GPE in the applicant company ’s trucks was removed from the tanks and transferred to a container situated on the company LOC . From there the diesel was further transferred to other company cars , as well as to the personal cars of the second and third applicants . No customs and excise duties or other fees were paid .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant company , jointly with the second and third applicants , to pay customs duties , valueadded tax and excise in the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) for DATE , DATE and DATE . These import taxes were levied because the diesel imported from GPE had been removed from the tanks of the trucks and transferred to a container for purposes other than the repair of the vehicles in question . Apparently this decision was not appealed against .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the second and third applicants for aggravated tax fraud ( törkeä veropetos , grovt skattebedrägeri ) concerning the time DATE . They were accused of aggravated tax fraud because , as board members of the applicant company together with a third person and in their personal capacity , they had participated in tax evasion by transferring QUANTITY of diesel imported from GPE to other cars without paying any import taxes , namely customs duties , value - added tax and excise . The amount of evaded taxes had totalled ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the second and third applicants as charged and sentenced both of them to an CARDINAL suspended prison sentence . They were ordered to pay jointly to the customs authorities EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL plus interest as compensation for different taxes evaded during DATE , DATE and DATE .

NORP By letter dated DATE the second and third applicants appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting that the ORG judgment be quashed .

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG judgment .

NORP By letter dated DATE the second and third applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , requesting that the charges be dismissed and the compensation claims be rejected .

NORP By letter dated DATE the second and third applicants referred to a recent case of the ORG concerning ne bis in idem and requested ORG to take it into account as an alternative to their primary claims .

On DATE ORG refused the second and third applicants leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG ( Ajoneuvohallintokeskus , Fordonsförvaltningscentralen ) , the current ORG ( ORG turvallisuusvirasto , Trafiksäkerhetsverket ) , imposed on the applicants a fuel fee ( polttoainemaksu , bränsleavgift ) and an additional tax ( lisävero , tilläggsskatt ) concerning DATE for having used more leniently taxed diesel than diesel oil in their vehicles without giving any prior notification to the authorities . The fee and the additional tax for the applicant company amounted to LAW . The second applicant was ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the third applicant ORG CARDINAL respectively in fuel fees and additional tax for having used untaxed diesel in their private cars .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , claiming that the taxes and fees should be quashed as they had no legal basis .

On DATE ORG decided to stay the order to pay the above fuel fees and additional taxes until ORG could decide on the enforcement of the taxes in question .

On DATE ORG stayed the attachment of the above fees and taxes by allowing a seizure but prohibiting their sale . This stay on enforcement was to remain in force until the final decision in the case .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeals .

By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed further to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .

During the written phase , ORG asked the parties ex officio to comment on the ORG ’s recent judgment PERSON GPE in the context of the present case . The tax authorities affirmed in their statement of CARDINAL DATE that the subject of the tax fraud proceedings and the obligation to pay fuel fees did not concern the same set of events but events which were distinct in time and place . The applicants argued in their submission of DATE that all sanctions imposed in the case ( taxes , fees , order to pay compensation and criminal sanctions ) were based on the same set of facts .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants leave to appeal but rejected their appeals . It thus upheld ORG decisions . It found that the fuel fees concerning DATE and DATE had been imposed threefold and those concerning DATE had been increased by PERCENT . The second and third applicants had been convicted of aggravated tax fraud for failure to pay import taxes on diesel imported DATE by a judgment that had become final on DATE . As the criminal proceedings concerned failure to pay import taxes on the imported diesel and the fuel fees concerned the use of such diesel after the importation into GPE , it was not a question of the same matter . The ne bis in idem principle had thus not been violated .

According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen ; as amended by Acts no . DATE and no . ORG ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a taxation authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .

If a more leniently taxed oil than diesel oil is used as motor fuel , prior notice of such intended use must be given and additional tax and/or a fuel fee shall be paid . According to LAW ( laki polttoainemaksusta , lagen om bränsleavgift , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which was in force until DATE , the fuel fee was not collected on the fuel contained in the tank of a vehicle when the vehicle was imported . If the use of a more leniently taxed fuel than diesel oil was discovered in a vehicle during a time in respect of which no prior notification had been given , the fuel fee collected was to be CARDINAL times the normal amount . The current LAW no . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , contains the same provisions except for the increased amount of the fee . The fee shall be increased by a maximum of PERCENT if no prior notification has been made , by a maximum of PERCENT if the use is repetitive and at most it can be doubled in aggravated cases .


Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Article 35-3 - Ratione loci);Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Egidijus Kūris;Elisabet Fura;Françoise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nicolas Bratza;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano;Sverre Erik Jebens;Ksenija Turković

At the time of the demise of the GPE , the GPE - GPE ( “ the NKAO ” ) was an autonomous province of GPE ( “ the GPE SSR ” ) . Situated within the territory of the GPE SSR , it covered CARDINAL sq . km . There was at that time no common border between Nagorno - Karabakh ( known as Artsakh by its NORP name ) and the NORP Soviet GPE ( “ the NORP SSR ” ) , which were separated by NORP territory , at the shortest distance by the district of Lachin , including a strip of land often referred to as the “ NORP corridor ” , QUANTITY wide .

According to the GPE census of DATE , the ORG had a population of CARDINAL , consisting of PERCENT ethnic NORP and PERCENT ethnic NORP , with NORP and NORP minorities . The district of Lachin had a different demographic , the great majority of its population of CARDINAL being NORP and NORP . PERCENT were NORP .

NORP In DATE demonstrations were held in PERSON , the regional capital of the ORG , as well as in the NORP capital of GPE , demanding the incorporation of GPE - Karabakh into GPE . On DATE the NORP of the ORG made a request to ORG of the NORP SSR , the GPE SSR and the GPE that the NKAO be allowed to secede from GPE and join GPE . The request was rejected by ORG of the GPE on DATE . In DATE it was also rejected by ORG whereas its counterpart in GPE voted in favour of unification .

NORP Throughout DATE the demonstrations calling for unification continued . The district of Lachin was subjected to roadblocks and attacks . The clashes led to many casualties , and refugees , numbering CARDINAL on both sides , flowed between GPE and GPE . As a consequence , on QUANTITY DATE ORG placed the ORG under GPE ’s direct rule . However , on DATE , control of the province was returned to GPE . DATE , on DATE , ORG of the NORP SSR and the ORG regional council adopted a joint resolution , “ On the reunification of GPE - Karabakh with GPE ” . As a result of this resolution a joint budget for the CARDINAL entities was established in DATE and a decision to include ORG in the upcoming NORP elections was taken in DATE .

NORP In DATE , following an escalation of the conflict , NORP troops arrived in GPE and GPE - Karabakh , and the latter province was placed under a state of emergency . Violent clashes between NORP and NORP continued , however , with the occasional intervention by NORP forces .

On DATE GPE declared independence from GPE . This was subsequently formalised by means of the adoption of LAW on ORG of DATE . On DATE the NORP of the ORG announced the establishment of ORG ( hereinafter the “ NKR ” ) , consisting of the territory of the ORG and the NORP district of GPE , and declared that it was no longer under NORP jurisdiction . On CARDINAL DATE the NORP parliament abolished the autonomy previously enjoyed by PERSON . In a referendum organised in GPE - Karabakh on DATE , PERCENT of those participating voted in favour of secession . However , the NORP population boycotted the referendum . In DATE , GPE was dissolved and NORP troops began to withdraw from the region . Military control of ORG was rapidly passing to PERSON . On DATE the “ NKR ” , having regard to the results of the referendum , reaffirmed its independence from GPE .

In DATE the conflict gradually escalated into full - scale war . The ethnic NORP conquered several NORP villages , leading to at least CARDINAL deaths and the departure of the population .

The district of Lachin , in particular the town of ORG , was attacked many times . The applicants claimed that the attacks were made by troops of both PERSON and GPE . The respondent Government maintained , however , that GPE did not participate in the events , but that military action was carried out by the defence forces of GPE - Karabakh and volunteer groups . For DATE in DATE the roads to Lachin were under the control of forces of NORP ethnicity who manned and controlled checkpoints . The town of PERSON became completely isolated . In mid - May CARDINAL PERSON was subjected to aerial bombardment , in the course of which many houses were destroyed .

On DATE , realising that troops were advancing rapidly towards ORG , villagers fled . The following day the town of PERSON was captured by forces of NORP ethnicity . It appears that the town was looted and burned in DATE following the takeover . According to information obtained by the respondent Government from the authorities of the “ NKR ” , the city of ORG and the surrounding villages of Aghbulag , Chirag and PERSON were completely destroyed during the military conflict .

NORP In DATE the NORP parliament decreed that it would not sign any international agreement stipulating that GPE - Karabakh remain a part of GPE .

According to a Human Rights Watch ( HRW ) report ( “ DATE GPE - Karabakh ” , DATE ) , the capture of the district of ORG created CARDINAL NORP displaced persons , many of them of NORP descent .

Following the capture of Lachin , ethnic NORP forces continued to conquer CARDINAL more NORP districts surrounding GPE - Karabakh ( Kelbajar , PERSON , PERSON and GPE ) and substantial parts of CARDINAL others ( PERSON and PERSON ) .

On DATE a ceasefire agreement ( the Bishkek Protocol ) was signed by GPE , GPE and the “ NKR ” following NORP mediation . It came into effect on DATE

According to the above - mentioned ORG report , DATE an estimated CARDINAL,CARDINAL–CARDINAL,CARDINAL NORP were forced out of ORG , GPE , and the CARDINAL NORP districts surrounding GPE - Karabakh . According to information from NORP authorities , CARDINAL NORP refugees from GPE and CARDINAL internally displaced persons ( from regions in GPE bordering GPE ) have been registered .

According to the respondent Government , the “ ORG ” controls CARDINAL sq . km of the former ORG . While it is debated how much of the CARDINAL partly conquered districts is occupied by the “ NKR ” , it appears that the occupied territory of the CARDINAL surrounding districts in total amounts to QUANTITY . km .

Estimates of DATE ’s population of GPE - Karabakh vary CARDINAL people , PERCENT being of NORP ethnicity . Virtually no Azerbaijanis remain . The district of ORG has a population of CARDINAL NORP .

No political settlement of the conflict has so far been reached . The self - proclaimed independence of the “ NKR ” has not been recognised by any ORG or international organisation . Recurring breaches of the DATE ceasefire agreement along the borders have led to the loss of many lives and the rhetoric of officials remains hostile . Moreover , according to international reports , tension has heightened in DATE and military expenditure in GPE and GPE has increased significantly .

Several proposals for a peaceful solution of the conflict have failed . Negotiations have been carried out under the auspices of the OSCE ( Organization for Security and Co - operation in LOC ) and its so - called ORG . In GPE in DATE the ORG ’s CARDINAL Co - Chairs – GPE , GPE and GPE – presented to GPE and GPE a set of Basic Principles for a settlement . The Basic Principles , which have since been updated , call , inter alia , for the return of the territories surrounding GPE - Karabakh to NORP control , an interim status for GPE - Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self - governance , a corridor linking GPE to GPE - Karabakh , a future determination of the final legal status of GPE - Karabakh through a legally binding referendum , the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence , and international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation . The idea is that the endorsement of these principles by GPE and GPE would enable the drafting of a comprehensive and detailed settlement . Following intensive shuttle diplomacy by ORG diplomats and a number of meetings between the presidents of the CARDINAL countries in DATE , the process lost momentum in DATE . So far the parties to the conflict have not signed a formal agreement on ORG .

On DATE ORG presented a “ Report of ORG - Chairs’ Field Assessment Mission to GPE Nagorno - Karabakh ” , the executive summary of which reads as follows :

“ ORG conducted a Field Assessment Mission to the CARDINAL occupied territories of GPE surrounding GPE - Karabakh ( NK ) from DATE , to assess the overall situation there , including humanitarian and other aspects . ORG were joined by ORG Chairman - in - Office and his team , which provided logistical support , and by CARDINAL experts from the ORG and CARDINAL member of the DATE OSCE Fact - Finding Mission . This was the first mission by the international community to the territories DATE , and the first visit by ORG personnel in DATE .

In travelling QUANTITY throughout the territories , ORG saw stark evidence of the disastrous consequences of the GPE - Karabakh conflict and the failure to reach a peaceful settlement . Towns and villages that existed before the conflict are abandoned and almost entirely in ruins . While no reliable figures exist , the overall population is CARDINAL persons , living in small settlements and in the towns of ORG . ORG assess that there has been no significant growth in the population since DATE . The settlers , for the most part ethnic NORP who were relocated to the territories from elsewhere in GPE , live in precarious conditions , with poor infrastructure , little economic activity , and limited access to public services . Many lack identity documents . For administrative purposes , the CARDINAL territories , the former LOC , and other areas have been incorporated into CARDINAL new districts .

The harsh reality of the situation in the territories has reinforced the view of the CoChairs that the status quo is unacceptable , and that only a peaceful , negotiated settlement can bring the prospect of a better , more certain future to the people who used to live in the territories and those who live there now . The Co - Chairs urge the leaders of all the parties to avoid any activities in the territories and other disputed areas that would prejudice a final settlement or change the character of these areas . They also recommend that measures be taken to preserve cemeteries and places of worship in the territories and to clarify the status of settlers who lack identity documents . ORG intend to undertake further missions to other areas affected by the FAC conflict , and to include in such missions experts from relevant international agencies that would be involved in implementing a peace settlement . ”

On DATE the Presidents of the Co - Chair countries of the GPE group issued a joint statement on the GPE - Karabakh conflict :

“ We , the Presidents of ORG countries – GPE , GPE , and GPE – remain committed to helping the parties to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict reach a lasting and peaceful settlement . We express our deep regret that , rather than trying to find a solution based upon mutual interests , the parties have continued to seek CARDINAL - sided advantage in the negotiation process .

We continue to firmly believe that the elements outlined in the statements of our countries over DATE must be the foundation of any fair and lasting settlement to the ORG - Karabakh conflict . These elements should be seen as an integrated whole , as any attempt to select some elements over others would make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution .

We reiterate that only a negotiated settlement can lead to peace , stability , and reconciliation , opening opportunities for regional development and cooperation . The use of military force that has already created the current situation of confrontation and instability will not resolve the conflict . A renewal of hostilities would be disastrous for the population of the region , resulting in loss of life , more destruction , additional refugees , and enormous financial costs . We strongly urge the leaders of all the sides to recommit to the GPE principles , particularly those relating to the non - use of force or the threat of force , territorial integrity , and equal rights and self - determination of peoples . We also appeal to them to refrain from any actions or rhetoric that could raise tension in the region and lead to escalation of the conflict . The leaders should prepare their people for peace , not war .

Our countries stand ready to assist the sides , but the responsibility for putting an end to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict remains with them . We strongly believe that further delay in reaching a balanced agreement on the framework for a comprehensive peace is unacceptable , and urge the leaders of GPE and GPE to focus with renewed energy on the issues that remain unresolved . ”

The applicants have stated that they are NORP who lived in the district of Lachin , where their ancestors had lived for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE they were forced to flee from the district to GPE . They have since been unable to return to their homes and properties because of NORP occupation .

Mr PERSON was born in DATE . He lived in the district of Lachin . In the original application , it was mentioned that he lived in the village of GPE , but in the reply to the Government ’s observations it was stated that his correct home village was PERSON , where he worked as a teacher for DATE . He claimed that his possessions included a large furnished house of QUANTITY . m , CARDINAL beehives , CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL head of big livestock , and CARDINAL handmade carpets .

On DATE , together with the applicants’ reply to the respondent Government ’s observations , he submitted an official certificate ( “ technical passport ” ) , dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY , CARDINAL-bedroom dwelling - house with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m ( living area CARDINAL sq . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) and a storehouse of QUANTITY . m , situated on a plot of land of CARDINAL sq . m , had been registered in his name .

He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a QUANTITY , CARDINAL-room dwelling - house of CARDINAL sq . m and a car , as well as a statement by PERSON and PERSON , representatives of ORG of GPE , who stated that Mr PERSON had used to live in GPE .

Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a marriage certificate according to which he was born in PERSON and married there in DATE , birth certificates for his son and daughter , both born in PERSON in DATE and DATE respectively , as well as a DATE letter and a DATE employment book issued by ORG , showing that he worked as a teacher in PERSON .

Mr PERSON was born in DATE . He lived in the district of Lachin . In the original application , it was mentioned that he lived in the village of GPE , but in the reply to the Government ’s observations it was stated that his correct home village was PERSON , where he worked as a teacher for DATE . He claimed that his possessions included a large furnished house of QUANTITY sq . m , a new “ FAC car , CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL head of big livestock , and CARDINAL handmade carpets .

On DATE he submitted a technical passport dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - bedroom dwelling - house with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m ( living area CARDINAL sq . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) and a storehouse of QUANTITY . m , situated on a plot of land of CARDINAL sq . m , had been registered in his name .

He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a QUANTITY dwelling - house with CARDINAL rooms , as well as a statement by PERSON and PERSON , representatives of ORG of GPE , who stated that Mr PERSON had used to live in GPE .

NORP Before FAC , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a marriage certificate according to which he was born in PERSON and married there in DATE , birth certificates for his son and CARDINAL daughters , all born in PERSON in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , as well as a GPE passport issued in DATE , indicating PERSON as place of birth and containing a DATE registration stamp designating PERSON as place of residence .

Mr PERSON was born in PERSON in DATE . In DATE he graduated with a degree in engineering from ORG in GPE . In DATE , while still studying in GPE , he visited the town of ORG and was given a QUANTITY . m plot of land by the ORG . He claimed that he built a CARDINAL - bedroom house with a garage on it and lived there with his wife and children until he was forced to leave in DATE . There were also some cattle sheds . He also owned a car repair business called “ Auto Service ” , a shop and a café , which were situated on a further QUANTITY . m of land that he owned . In addition , he had CARDINAL cows , CARDINAL lambs and CARDINAL sheep .

Mr Gebrayilov had been unable to return to ORG since his departure in DATE . In DATE NORP friends went to Lachin and videotaped the condition of the houses in the town . According to the applicant , he could see from the video that his house had been burnt down . He had also been informed by people who left PERSON after him that his house had been burnt down by NORP forces DATE after he had left ORG .

On DATE PERSON submitted a technical passport dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - bedroom dwelling - house with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m ( living area QUANTITY . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) , situated on a plot of land of QUANTITY . m , had been registered in his name .

He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a CARDINAL - storey house with CARDINAL rooms , as well as a statement by PERSON , representative of ORG of GPE , who stated that PERSON had used to live in his personal house in PERSON .

Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a birth certificate and a marriage certificate according to which he was born in PERSON and married there in DATE , birth certificates for his daughter and CARDINAL sons , all born in ORG in DATE , CARDINAL and DATE respectively , as well as an army book issued in DATE .

Mr PERSON was born in DATE in the village of Aghbulag in the district of Lachin . He worked there as a teacher for DATE . He claimed that his possessions included a large furnished house of QUANTITY sq . m , a new “ FAC car , CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL head of big livestock , and CARDINAL handmade carpets .

On DATE he submitted a technical passport dated CARDINAL DATE , according to which a DATE , CARDINAL - bedroom dwelling - house with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m ( living area QUANTITY . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) and a storehouse of CARDINAL sq . m , situated on a plot of land of CARDINAL sq . m , had been registered in his name .

He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - room dwelling - house as well as a stall for livestock and subsidiary buildings , as well as a statement by PERSON , representative of ORG of GPE , who stated that Mr GPE had used to live in his personal house in Aghbulag .

Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant submitted a birth certificate , a GPE passport issued in DATE and an employment book issued by ORG , indicating that he was born in Aghbulag and had worked as a teacher and school director in that village DATE .

Mr PERSON was born in DATE in the village of GPE in the district of Lachin . After graduating with a degree in engineering from ORG in GPE in DATE , he returned to the town of ORG where he was employed as an engineer and , from DATE , as chief engineer at ORG . He claimed that he owned and lived in a twostorey , CARDINAL - bedroom house in ORG which he had built himself . The house was situated at no . CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG , PERSON . Mr PERSON submitted that the current market value of the house would be MONEY ( ORG ) . He also owned the land around his house and had a share ( QUANTITY ) in a collective farm in GPE . Furthermore , he owned some land by means of “ collective ownership ” .

On DATE he submitted a technical passport dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY dwelling - house with a total area of QUANTITY . m ( living area QUANTITY . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) , situated on a plot of land of CARDINAL sq . m , had been registered in his name .

He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - room dwelling - house , as well as a statement by PERSON , representative of ORG of GPE , who stated that PERSON had used to live in his own house at CARDINAL PERSON , PERSON .

Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a marriage certificate according to which he was born in GPE and married there in DATE , birth certificates for his CARDINAL daughters , born in GPE in DATE and in ORG in DATE respectively , a birth certificate for his son , registered as having been born in GPE in DATE , as well as an army book issued in DATE and an employment book dated in DATE . He explained that , while his son had in fact been born in GPE , it was normal under the GPE propiska system to record a child as having been born at the GPE registered place of residence .

Mr PERSON was born in the town of Lachin in DATE and died on DATE . On DATE , at the time of submitting the present application , he stated that , when he was forced to leave on CARDINAL DATE , he had been living at holding no . CARDINAL , PERSON Street , apt ORG in the town of ORG , a property he owned and which included a CARDINAL - storey residential family house built in DATE with a surface of CARDINAL sq . m and a yard area of CARDINAL sq . m. He also claimed that he owned a further site of CARDINAL sq . m on that street . Annexed to the application was a technical passport dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY house with a yard , of the mentioned sizes , had been registered in his name .

On DATE the applicant ’s representatives submitted , however , that he had been living at CARDINAL PERSON Street in Lachin . Still , he owned the CARDINAL properties on ORG . Attached to these submissions were a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours and a statement by PERSON , representative of ORG of GPE , who stated that PERSON had used to live in his own house at H. Abdullayev Street , Lachin . Attached were also a decision of CARDINAL DATE by GPE NORP of ORG to allocate the above - mentioned plot of QUANTITY . m to the applicant and several invoices for animal feed , building materials and building subsidies allegedly used during the construction of his properties .

On DATE Mr PERSON , the son of the applicant , stated that the family had used to live at FAC but that , on some unspecified date , the name and numbering of the street had been changed and their address was thereafter PERSON Street . Thus , the CARDINAL addresses mentioned above referred to the same property .

Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant ’s representatives submitted , inter alia , a birth certificate and a marriage certificate according to which he was born in PERSON and married there in DATE , a birth certificate for his son , born in GPE in the district of ORG in DATE , as well as an army book issued in DATE .

On the issue of whether GPE exercises authority in or control over the “ NKR ” and the surrounding territories , the applicants and the respondent Government as well as the third - party intervener , ORG , have submitted extensive documentation and statements . The information thus received is summarised below , in so far as considered relevant by the ORG .

In DATE ORG adopted CARDINAL resolutions relating to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict .

Resolution CARDINAL of DATE ( S / RES/CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) :


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

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

On DATE the applicant was wounded by a gunshot in the vicinity of a jewellery shop , which had been robbed by a group of people , allegedly including him . During the incident , shots were fired and the owner of the shop was shot dead . The applicant was unconscious when admitted to the emergency department of the hospital .

On DATE the gendarmerie took statements from the applicant , which he did not sign . They noted that as the applicant ’s hands were wounded and bandaged , he was unable to sign them . In these statements , the applicant admitted that he had been involved in the armed robbery . He stated , inter alia , that he had had a gun in his possession , which he had used during the robbery after the shop owner had begun firing . He also stated that he had committed the offence with CARDINAL other people .

On DATE the officers took further statements from the applicant and the applicant ’s fingerprint was added in lieu of a signature . On DATE , he was discharged from the emergency department of the hospital . According to a document drafted and signed by a doctor , the applicant had undergone a thoracotomy and laparotomy while there .

On DATE the applicant was taken to the gendarmerie for questioning . According to a document drafted by CARDINAL officers , the applicant ’s doctors had authorised his transfer to custody . On DATE , he was asked to identify the guns allegedly used in the incident . He was also asked to identify CARDINAL other people who had been arrested in connection with the same robbery . According to reports drawn up by the officers on DATE , the applicant ’s condition deteriorated at TIME and he was therefore taken back to hospital .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge . According to a document containing his statements to the judge , the applicant did not ask to be represented by a lawyer . He once again admitted that he had been involved in the armed robbery , but denied the accusation that he had killed the owner of the shop . The applicant ’s fingerprint was added at the end of the statements . On DATE , the investigating judge ordered his pre - trial detention .

While being questioned in custody and subsequently by the public prosecutor and the judge , the applicant was not represented by a lawyer .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other people , charging them with armed robbery and murder .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a second indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other people , accusing them of being members of ORG ) and of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force .

On DATE the applicant told ORG that he had not been involved in the armed robbery in question . He submitted that he had been in possession of a firearm as he had enemies , and had used the gun as he had heard gunshots when he was in the vicinity of the incident . He had thought that he had been attacked by his enemies , and had therefore opened fire .

On DATE in his defence submissions to ORG , the applicant challenged the veracity of his statements taken DATE and claimed that they had been taken by the gendarmerie while he was unconscious in hospital .

In decisions of DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and ORG decided to join the CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant with another case before ORG on the ground that there was a factual and legal link between the cases ( CARDINAL ) .

In a petition dated DATE to ORG , the applicant ’s representative contended that the applicant had been seriously injured on DATE , and that when his statements drafted by the security officers had been taken on DATE , he had been in such a state that he could not even sign them . The lawyer alleged that the security forces had made up a scenario implicating the applicant in the armed robbery and in terrorist - related activities .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative told ORG that the applicant had not known the people whose names had been mentioned in his statements and had denied their veracity , as their contents had been concocted by the security forces .

On DATE Article CARDINAL of the LAW was amended , excluding military members from ORG . As a consequence , the military judge sitting on the bench of ORG was replaced by a civilian judge . Following the abolition of ORG by Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , the case against the applicant was transferred to ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative told ORG that the applicant ’s statements had been taken by the gendarmerie under torture .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of the former LAW of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force and sentenced him to “ aggravated ” life imprisonment ( without the possibility of parole ) . Basing its decision on ballistic , autopsy and other expert reports , statements taken from the accused , the shop owner ’s cousin , who had intervened in the proceedings as a civil party , witnesses and all other evidence available in the case file , the court established that the applicant and CARDINAL other people were accomplices in the armed robbery on behalf of the THKP - C and in murder .

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

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time can be found in the case of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant ’s father bought a plot of CARDINAL ha of land in territory which is now part of the city of GPE . The property was nationalised in DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant asked the NORP authorities to restore his rights to his father ’s land . In DATE the GPE city authorities restored his property rights by conferring on him a right to obtain a plot no bigger than CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha to build an individual house ( individualaus namo statybai ) ; under LAW in force at that time , CARDINAL ha was the maximum area of land returnable in natura within the GPE city boundaries .

On DATE , the authorities transferred into the applicant ’s ownership , without any payment , a plot of CARDINAL ha in GPE city to build a house .

On DATE ORG held that the limiting of the return of land in natura , if vacant and consequently of no particular societal value , was in breach of LAW , which protects the right to property .

Relying on ORG ruling , on DATE the applicant asked the GPE city authorities to stop distributing or selling the land which he claimed to be that of his father , given that he could now claim a bigger portion of that land . He enclosed land registry maps indicating the CARDINAL ha plot of land that had previously belonged to his father .

The GPE city authorities replied on DATE that , taking into account the guidelines set out in ORG ruling , ORG had to be amended as regards the restitution of the land within the city limits . Given that the applicant ’s request related to the return of a plot of land in GPE in the actual place where his father had had his land ( perduodant žemės sklypą turėtoje vietoje ) , his request could only be examined after the aforementioned legislation had been amended .

Following another unrelated request for restitution , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Vilniaus apskrities viršininko administracija ) transferred part of the disputed land , specifically plot no . CARDINAL comprising CARDINAL ha , to ORG to build an individual house . GPE later resold that plot to third parties .

On DATE , the Law on ORG was amended to the effect that the maximum area of land returnable in GPE city , provided that that land was not ORG redeemable , was CARDINAL ha .

Relying on the amended LAW , on DATE the applicant asked the GPE city authorities to return to him the remaining part of the plot , CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha ( that is to say , CARDINAL ha ) , in his father ’s land .

In their internal correspondence of DATE and DATE the GPE city authorities concluded that the land could not be returned to the applicant in natura because it had been built upon and it also contained a forest of State importance . The land thus had to be bought by the ORG and the applicant was to be compensated by other methods as provided for by ORG .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON žemės tarnyba ) informed the applicant that the land formerly owned by his father was ORG redeemable land . However , having examined the land registry maps of the land owned by the applicant ’s father , ORG also noted that only part of that land had been divided into plots for the construction of houses . In that case , the unoccupied land could thus be returned in natura . ORG thus notified the applicant that it had requested the GPE authorities to re - examine the availability of unbuilt land CARDINAL more time .

In DATE the Seimas ( parliamentary ) Ombudsman , ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and in DATE a prosecutor , found that the transfer of plot no . CARDINAL to GPE by the ORG authorities had been negligent and in breach of the law , because this had been done after ORG ruling of DATE ; it was the applicant who had priority rights to that plot . However , given that the third parties who had acquired plot no . CARDINAL had done so in good faith , the prosecutor ruled that the plot could not be taken away from them and returned to the applicant .

In DATE the GPE county authorities informed the applicant that his father ’s land was to be bought by the ORG . The applicant was also informed that he could receive securities to the value of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) for each hectare of his father ’s land as compensation .

In DATE and DATE , ORG confirmed the above value for CARDINAL ha of land in GPE as had been established by the Methodology set out by the Government ( hereinafter – ‘ the LOC ) . It also underlined that in DATE ORG had upheld that Methodology ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The Methodology set out the average price of the land paid in the course of compulsory purchases by the ORG for the entire territory of a city , taking into account that city ’s size and significance . Lastly , the applicant was informed that up to that date PERCENT of persons had been compensated in accordance with the Methodology set out by the Government . Accordingly , it would be against the principle of equality if others , including the applicant , were to be compensated by changing the Methodology .

On DATE the applicant asked the authorities to compensate him for CARDINAL ha of land ( that is to say , CARDINAL ha ) by allocating another plot in GPE city to him . Relying on information from ORG , the applicant noted that the indexed value ( indeksuota sklypo vertė ) of the CARDINAL ha ( plot no . CARDINAL ) sold to ORG was LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . He asserted that the market value of the other plot was even higher . Therefore , it was not fair to conclude that CARDINAL ha of land in GPE city could be compensated by a sum of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The applicant thus asked the authorities to pay him LTL CARDINAL for plot no . CARDINAL and “ to quickly return him the remaining CARDINAL ha of land in another place in GPE city or with a decent cash settlement ( grąžinti likusią priklausančią man CARDINAL ha žemę kitoje vietoje ORG mieste greitu laiku arba užmokėti pinigais žmogišką kainą ) ” .

NORP In reply to the applicant ’s complaint , on DATE the authorities acknowledged that he was “ a candidate ( pretendentas ) for restoration of the property rights to CARDINAL ha of his father ’s land ” . The authorities underlined the applicant ’s preference , as expressed in his request , to obtain compensation in money or to obtain another plot of land in GPE [ city ] . Pursuant to the applicable legislation , the authorities asked the applicant to specify how he wished to proceed with the restitution , given that the land his father had once owned in GPE city was to be bought by the ORG and thus the exact same plot could not be returned to him . According to the domestic law as in force at that time , the applicant could either choose to obtain another plot of land in a rural area or pecuniary compensation ( either in securities or by having his liabilities to the ORG annulled ) .

In reply to another application by the applicant , on DATE ORG reiterated that it was not possible to return the applicant ’s father ’s exact same land in GPE city . The applicant was requested to choose another method of compensation provided for in LAW . He was also notified that information about available plots of land in GPE city could be found on the internet site of ORG .

On DATE , and in reply to another complaint by the applicant , ORG reiterated that he had to choose how he wished to be compensated for the land bought by the ORG , as provided for in LAW . ORG noted the ORG ’s conclusion that land had been transferred to ORG in breach of the applicant ’s rights , as well as the prosecutor ’s conclusion that it was not possible to annul that transfer .

NORP The applicant then started court proceedings , claiming that the ORG should pay him the market value for the CARDINAL ha plot of land , that had been transferred to GPE , which the applicant noted to have an average market value ( vidutinė rinkos vertė ) of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) as established in DATE by ORG ( also see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

He also claimed that the ORG should pay market - value compensation for the unreturned CARDINAL ha of land in GPE , which in his view was worth LTL CARDINAL .

By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the claim as unfounded . The court acknowledged that on DATE GPE had been granted a CARDINAL ha plot of land on the applicant ’s father ’s former holding in contravention of the law , because this was done after ORG ruling of DATE . That being so , the documents in the court ’s possession confirmed that the applicant ’s father ’s land belonged to land destined to be bought by the ORG , because it contained privately owned plots of land with houses or forests of ORG importance as provided for in GPE CARDINAL § DATE and CARDINAL of the Law on ORG . The court did not specify which part of the applicant ’s father ’s plot belonged to either of those categories .

The first instance court therefore held that the applicant should be compensated for the remaining part of his father ’s land according to the Methodology set out by the Government . That methodology had been upheld by ORG in DATE . The domestic law did not provide that the land bought by the ORG should be compensated by paying ORG estimated values .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG fully upheld the lower court ’s decision . It observed that both the CARDINAL ha plot and a CARDINAL ha plot were part of land due to be bought by the ORG . Consequently , the applicant was to be compensated for those plots according to the rules set out in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the Law on ORG . The latter provision listed the ways the applicant had at his disposal to obtain restitution ; it was up to the applicant which method to choose . The court observed an abundance of documents in the case file which indicated that the applicant wished to be compensated in cash . However , the court stated that the applicant ’s position was not entirely concrete and clear . Accordingly , and given the principle of inseparableness of rights and obligations , the applicant had to submit a request to the ORG expressing concretely how he wished to be compensated .

Lastly , ORG underlined that no market - value compensation for land being compulsorily bought by the ORG had been provided for in the Methodology .

NORP In DATE ORG wrote to the applicant stating that his name on the list of persons awaiting plots for building a house in GPE had been moved from ORG to GPE because he had already been granted a plot of land to build a house in DATE .

On DATE , LAW ( CARDINAL ) the Law on ORG was amended by providing , for the first time , for payment in cash ( pinigais ) as one of the ways of compensating for land compulsorily bought by the ORG .

DATE , on DATE , ORG wrote to the applicant informing him of this new opportunity and asking him to state how he wished to be compensated , until the statutory deadline to express such choice , namely DATE .

On DATE ORG issued the applicant with a document to the effect that the average market value ( vidutinė rinkos vertė ) of plot no . CARDINAL was LTL CARDINAL , according to its DATE estimate .

On DATE , the applicant wrote to the ORG saying that in DATE he was ORG on the waiting list of persons whose property rights were to be restored in the city of GPE .

On DATE the GPE city authorities informed the applicant that , in accordance with the Methodology approved by the Government , the indexed value ( indeksuota vertė ) of the CARDINAL ha of land to be bought by the ORG was ORG CARDINAL . The laws did not allow compensation for this land by market - value payment . The authorities also reminded the applicant that , in accordance with LAW of ORG , should a citizen fail to make a choice as to how he or she wished to be compensated for the land bought by the ORG , or if they favoured a method not provided for by ORG , he or she would be compensated in cash ( pinigais ) .

NORP In reply to the applicant ’s request , on DATE ORG confirmed that the unreturned plot of land to which the applicant could still obtain restitution measured CARDINAL ha ( nustatyta , kad žemės plotas , į kurį liko atkurti nuosavybės teisę , sudaro CARDINAL ha ) . It reiterated to the applicant that his father ’s land had been assigned to the land which should be bought out by the ORG . That notwithstanding , ORG asked the GPE city municipality to verify whether there was the possibility to constitute a plot of land within the overall parcel that had belonged to the applicant ’s father . Only if there was an unoccupied plot could ORG restore the applicant ’s right in natura .

In reply to the applicant ’s request to grant him a plot of land , if it was possible to delimit CARDINAL within the territory that had once belonged to his father , on DATE GPE municipal authorities informed him that the entire plot was already occupied , namely it contained plots of land registered in private ownership , those plots being necessary to use buildings and houses . It also contained some forest land that was listed as being of State importance . For that reason , it was not possible to form a plot within the applicant ’s father ’s land . In accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law on Restitution , this exact land could not be returned as it was due to be bought by the ORG .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .


Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Preparation of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

András Sajó;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The opposition group PERSON was planning a demonstration to be held on DATE in GPE . On DATE the organisers – consisting of several members of that group DATE gave prior notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , informing it of the date , time , place and purpose of the demonstration . According to the notice , the assembly was scheduled to take place from TIME on DATE at the square in front of ORG in GPE .

The ORG refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed another location on the outskirts of GPE .

Nevertheless , the organisers decided to hold the demonstration in CARDINAL of the central areas of GPE , namely , near FAC .

According to the applicant , the demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants were demanding free and fair elections , democratic reforms , freedom of assembly , and the release of persons arrested during some previous demonstrations .

The applicant attended the demonstration , but shortly after it had started the police started to disperse it . The applicant was arrested at around TIME during the dispersal operation . He claimed that he had been arrested and taken to a police car by plain - clothed persons . According to the official records , he was arrested by police officers GPE and PERSON He was taken to police station No . CARDINAL of ORG .

Police officers GPE and PERSON stated the following in a report ( raport ) submitted to a superior police officer :

“ ... at around TIME we were on duty ... when Mammadov Gafgaz PERSON , whose identity was established later , was attempting to hold an unlawful demonstration . We demanded that he stop his illegal actions , [ he ] deliberately disobeyed [ and ] continued his actions , and for that reason we brought him to the [ police station ] ... ”

According to the applicant , he was questioned at the police station .

At TIME on DATE of the arrest , an “ administrative - offence report ” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was issued by police officer PERSON in respect of the applicant . The report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with the lawful order of the police during the demonstration , the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( “ the CAO ” ) .

The applicant refused to sign the report , which contained a preprinted text declaring that “ [ the arrested person ] was familiarised with the report , the reasons for his or her arrest and his or her rights under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL of the CAO of GPE were explained ” .

Subsequently , police officer PERSON prepared an “ administrative - arrest report ” ( inzibati qaydada tutma haqqında protokol ) , stating that :

“ ... the [ applicant ] was subjected to administrative arrest at TIME on DATE ... in order to ensure issuance of an administrative - offence report , to ensure a correct and timely examination of the case , [ and ] to ensure the execution of decisions , in accordance with ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG . ”

According to the applicant , he was never served with a copy of the administrative - offence report or with other documents in his case file . He was not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while he was kept in police custody .

On DATE , DATE after his arrest , the applicant was brought before ORG .

According to the applicant , he refused the assistance of a ORG lawyer and insisted on hiring a lawyer of his own choice , but the judge disregarded his request . His representation by that lawyer was ineffective and of a formalistic nature . The hearing was very brief and members of the public , including human rights defenders and journalists , were not allowed to attend , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .

The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer and that he had participated in the demonstration because he had a constitutional right to freedom of assembly .

According to the record of the hearing provided by the ORG , in response to the judge ’s question whether the police officers , before arresting him , had issued a relevant notice about dispersal of the demonstration , the applicant gave the following answer :

“ There were a lot of police officers and they were demanding that we disperse . But their demand was not lawful because we were exercising our right . Instead of calling on us to disperse , the responsibility of the police should have been to ensure our security . ”

The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer GPE , who testified as follows :

“ At TIME on DATE ... we noticed that [ the applicant ] , together with a group of other people , was attempting to hold an unauthorised demonstration by shouting out slogans , and ... asked them to observe silence . However , [ the applicant ] continued his actions , disobeying our requests ... ”

According to the record of the hearing , the ORG - funded lawyer stated that the applicant was not guilty and asked the court to take into consideration the applicant ’s age and the fact that he had children .

The court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in the unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted him under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ “ administrative ” detention .

NORP The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful . He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He urged ORG to quash the first - instance court ’s decision .

The applicant was represented before ORG by a lawyer of his own choice .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that its findings had been correct .