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

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG . They were represented before the ORG by the second applicant , who is a lawyer practising in Opatija .

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

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

NORP The applicants’ flat is located in a house which they shared with a certain GPE , until his death in DATE , and his partner PERSON , who occupied a flat on the ground floor of the house . Another flat on the ground floor of the house is owned by company B. Title to the applicants’ flat is registered in the name of their son , PERSON , who lived in it with them .

NORP Over DATE the applicants submitted complaints to various domestic authorities about the problems which they were having with their neighbour GPE and his family . This resulted in various proceedings before the competent domestic authorities , in particular criminal proceedings instituted in DATE , as well as civil proceedings for the removal from the house of an outdoor lighting device and an awning , which terminated in the applicants’ favour .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) convicted PERSON of the offence of carrying out illegal construction work DATE , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment suspended for DATE . This judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG convicted GPE of the offence of making threats to the first applicant on DATE , and fined him the sum of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ( approximately FAC ) . On appeal , ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) upheld the judgment on DATE but amended the sentence to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment suspended for DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ORG ) convicted PERSON and his partner PERSON of the offence of making threats to the first applicant on DATE and to the applicants’ son on DATE . PERSON was fined HRK CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) and PERSON was fined HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . On appeal , ORG upheld the judgment on DATE but amended PERSON ’s sentence , suspending it for DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON of the offence of carrying out illegal construction work DATE and DATE , and fined him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . This judgment became final on DATE .

In DATE the applicants’ son , PERSON , instituted a civil action in ORG against GPE , asking the court to order GPE to remove an awning from the balcony . He was represented in the proceedings by the second applicant .

On DATE ORG instructed GPE to modify his civil action by indicating the value of the claim . The order was made public on the court ’s notice - board on the grounds that the second applicant had failed to collect the item from her mailbox at the court . It was thereby deemed to have been properly served .

On DATE the ORG found that ORG had not complied with the order and therefore discontinued the proceedings , since in the circumstances it was presumed that the civil action had been withdrawn . The court ’s decision was likewise served by means of a public announcement on the court ’s notice board due to the second applicant ’s failure to collect the item from her mailbox .

NORP In DATE PERSON requested that ORG hold a hearing but was informed that the proceedings had been discontinued .

On DATE PERSON asked ORG to reinstate the proceedings on the grounds that he had not been properly served with that court ’s decisions .

On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ’s request as unfounded on the grounds that the second applicant , as his legal representative , had a mailbox at the court and was obliged to collect all her mail DATE . As she had failed to do that , the mail had been posted on the court ’s notice - board and upon the expiry of DATE it had been deemed to have been duly served . PERSON did not appeal against this decision and it became final on DATE .

In DATE the applicants lodged several complaints with ORG responsible for construction and spatial planning matters ( hereinafter : ORG ) regarding ORG construction of an exterior staircase on the house , renovation work carried out in his flat , and his installation of an awning .

These complaints led to several inspections by the competent construction inspectors and orders prohibiting ORG from carrying out further illegal construction work .

In DATE the applicants filed a complaint with ORG ( Ministarstvo kulture ) , arguing that there was a serious threat to the stability of their house , which was located in the historic city centre of ORG .

The Ministry of Culture replied on DATE , stating that ORG construction work could be considered to constitute serious damage to the building which would need to be repaired .

NORP In DATE the applicants filed a complaint with ORG ( Primorsko - goranska županija ; hereinafter : the “ County Administration ” ) arguing that the structural stability of their house was endangered .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed a request from GPE to legalise the construction work carried out on the house on the grounds that it had not been executed in compliance with the relevant standards and principles of conservation .

On DATE ORG urged ORG to implement the measures necessary in the applicants’ case on the basis of their assertion that the structural stability had been seriously disturbed and that there was a real and imminent risk to their lives and property .

On DATE a construction inspector invited the applicants and ORG to submit evidence showing that the structural stability had been disturbed .

The applicants complied with that order and on DATE submitted an expert report drafted by GPE attesting that the structural stability of the building had been disturbed and that there was a risk that , in the event of an earthquake , it could collapse .

On DATE the construction inspector expressed his doubts about Z.K. ’s findings . He considered that the report needed to be clarified as it was incomplete and methodologically flawed . The inspector also expressed his doubts as to ORG ’s qualifications .

On an unspecified date , the applicants provided ORG with a letter from ORG attesting that the expert who had drafted the report was an officially appointed court expert .

On DATE the chief construction inspector carried out an on - site inspection of the applicants’ house ‒ accompanied by a ORG expert in the structural analysis of buildings ‒ to examine the issues raised in the expert report submitted by the applicants . The applicants and all other interested parties to the proceedings were invited to attend the on - site inspection . The inspectors found that there was a small crack in the house and that it had not been properly maintained . However , there was no sign of any damage to the building indicating that any aspect of its structural stability was endangered .

The applicants challenged these findings before ORG . On DATE the chief construction inspector replied , explaining that ‒ although there were issues regarding the construction work carried out by D.D. insofar as the house was located in the historic centre of Opatija ‒ there were no indications that the structural stability of the house was in any way endangered .

There were numerous police interventions in connection with the applicants’ disputes with their neighbours . Those interventions concerned matters such as the parking of a car , the walking of a dog and arguments over the management of various installations in the house .

In DATE the applicants complained to ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova ) about the manner in which the ORG police had dealt with their complaints . They received a reply from the Chief of the ORG police department ( ORG uprava Primorsko - goranska ) stating that they had so far registered CARDINAL police interventions in connection with disputes between the applicants and their neighbours and that the Opatija Municipal State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u GPE ) had lodged CARDINAL indictments against GPE with the competent criminal courts . However , there was nothing indicating irregular or improper conduct on the part of the police in handling the applicants’ case .

The applicants again complained to ORG and on DATE they received a reply from the internal control department endorsing the police department ’s findings .

The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ The home is inviolable ... ”

“ Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . ”

“ The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE ) read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If a third party unlawfully disturbs the owner , without depriving him of his possessions , the owner may request the court to issue an injunction .

( CARDINAL ) NORP In order to exercise the right referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section in courts or in proceedings before another competent authority , the owner shall prove his ownership and that there has been nuisance by the third party ; and if the third party claims to have the right to carry out the impugned activity , he or she shall bear the burden of proof thereof .

( CARDINAL ) If damage is sustained as the result of nuisance referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the owner shall be entitled to claim compensation in accordance with the general rules governing compensation for damage ... ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE and CARDINAL ) , reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) All natural persons or legal entities are entitled to protection of their rights of personality [ prava osobnosti ] under the conditions provided by law .

( CARDINAL ) NORP of personality within the meaning of this LAW are the right to life , to physical and mental health , reputation , honour , dignity , name , privacy of personal and family life , liberty , etc .

( CARDINAL ) A legal entity shall have all the above - mentioned rights of personality – apart from those related to the biological character of a natural person DATE and , in particular , the right to a reputation and good name , honour , name or company name , business secrecy , entrepreneurial freedom , etc . ”

“ Damage may result from ... an infringement of rights of personality ( non - pecuniary damage ) . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any person may request that another person eliminate a major source of danger for him or her or for another person , as well as refrain from activities causing disturbance or a risk of damage if such disturbance or damage can not be prevented by applying the appropriate measures .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall order , at the request of an interested party , the taking of appropriate action to prevent the occurrence of damage or disturbance , or to eliminate a source of danger , at the expense of the possessor of such a source of danger , if the latter fails to do so himself or herself .

( CARDINAL ) If damage results from the performance of an act of public interest for which approval has been obtained from the competent authority , only compensation for damage exceeding the usual limits may be requested ( excessive damage ) .

( CARDINAL ) In that event , however , the taking of socially justified measures may be requested in order to prevent the occurrence of damage or to reduce damage . ”

“ Anyone may request a court or other competent authority to order the cessation of an activity which violates his or her rights of personality and the elimination of its consequences . ”


Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

On DATE ORG of LOC found the applicant guilty of battery and manslaughter and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

On DATE the applicant started serving a prison sentence in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . Prior to the applicant ’s arrest and conviction , he suffered from duodenal ulcer , chronic bronchitis and high blood pressure . In detention he developed chronic gastritis , hernia of a diaphragm , chronic cholecystitis , lipomas and pilonidal cysts .

On DATE the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell . During DATE , the pull - down beds were folded up during DATE . The inmates were able either to stand or sit on a metal stool fastened to the floor . The cell was cold and damp . There was no ventilation system . Because of the cracks in the door and windows , there was constant draught . The toilet was separated with a CARDINAL high partition from the living area of the cell . There was no hot water supply . The applicant was allowed CARDINAL ORG DATE exercise and CARDINAL minutes’ shower per week .

On DATE the applicant started having a fever resulting from an inflamed pilonidal cyst in the coccyx area .

On DATE a prison doctor examined the applicant , prescribed him a treatment by antibiotics and pain killers . The doctor also recommended that the applicant consult a surgeon .

On DATE the head of the correctional colony extended the applicant ’s detention in a disciplinary cell for DATE . The prison doctor examined the applicant and concluded that he was fit for detention in the disciplinary cell . He continued the prescribed treatment .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital at correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL . According to the applicant , he was able to consult a surgeon only on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant ’s surgery was scheduled on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s cyst opened up and the inflammation stopped .

On DATE the applicant was released from hospital and transferred back to the correctional colony .

On DATE the applicant consulted a surgeon and a neurologist at the hospital of correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL . He was prescribed medication for high blood pressure . The surgeon recommended that the applicant undergo a surgery in connection with the pilonidal cyst .

From DATE the applicant underwent additional examination and treatment at the surgical division of the hospital at correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL . According to the doctors who treated the applicant , no surgery was required .

According to the applicant , on DATE the applicant was summoned by the head of the operations division of the colony . There were several officers present in the office . They advised the applicant to withdraw his application before the ORG . They threatened him that , should he choose to pursue his application , he would be serving the rest of his sentence in a disciplinary cell without family visits and he could be charged with another offence . The applicant complied . He signed a letter . It was stamped by the colony and dispatched to ORG DATE .

On DATE the applicant wrote another letter to the ORG wherein he asked the ORG to disregard his previous letter that he had had to write because of the pressure put on him by the administration of the colony .

On DATE the ORG received the applicant ’s letter wherein he asked for withdrawal of his complaint . The letter bore a stamp of the correctional colony and a number attributed to by the administration .


No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant , who was at that time a journalist of the DATE magazine PERSON , contacted GPE , the then rector of ORG , in order to inform him that she considered him to be a long - term informant for the communist secret services in the past . She did not refer to any relevant documentary evidence in her possession .

On DATE the applicant published an article in PERSON entitled “ Agents Wearing Ermine ” , alleging that during the communist times PERSON had been an informant for the NORP secret police . The article had the subheading “ Leaders of university anti - vetting revolt collaborated with NORP secret services ” . A photo showing PERSON in the course of his official duties alongside the article had the caption : “ PERSON , rector of ORG , used to be an informant for the communist secret services under the name Lek ” . The article did not quote its sources , referring in general terms to unspecified documents .

The article was also published on the magazine ’s website ( www.wprost.pl ) , where it was available until DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant obtained consent from the President of ORG ( PERSON –“the ORG ” ) to access its files . The ORG ’s tasks included , inter alia , storing and researching documents of the communist security services . On DATE the applicant checked its files registered as GPE no . DATE , ORG Gd CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On an unspecified date PERSON informed the prosecution authorities that he had been libelled by the author of the article . On DATE ORG in GPE refused to institute a criminal investigation and informed GPE that the offence alleged could only be prosecuted by way of private prosecution .

A.C. ’s lawyer requested PERSON to publish an apology rectifying the allegations against him and his reply to them . On CARDINAL DATE the magazine refused to do so .

On DATE the magazine published an article written by the applicant ( but signed GPE ) entitled “ The Party of Fear ” . It was available on the magazine ’s website until DATE . Its main thrust was that highsociety former informants opposed amendments to vetting legislation introduced in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) for fear that their past would come to light . It referred to ORG as a former informant and contained his photo as rector of ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , a body composed mainly of media representatives designated to observe whether journalists followed the applicable rules of professional ethics , sent a letter to the applicant . It criticised the articles in so far as they alleged ORG ’s involvement with the communist secret services , saying that the arguments presented by the applicant in the articles were not sufficiently convincing . It also criticised the applicant for her failure to refer to the precise sources of her allegations . It further referred to a previous public plea to the media requesting them to deal with allegations of collaboration with the communist secret services with the utmost diligence , seriousness and caution , so as not to cause detriment to anyone and to avoid a sensationalist approach to a very serious issue . It recommended that only thoughtful discussion should be held about themes of such importance as collaboration with the secret services and the manner in which vetting legislation should be applied , commensurate with the gravity of the issues involved .

On DATE the same magazine published an article “ New Documents about the Chancellor – Informant ” . It was available on the magazine ’s website until DATE . Its thrust was also that ORG was a former informant . The article did not quote its sources and merely referred generally to unspecified documents . A photo of ORG was again published alongside it .

On DATE ORG brought a private bill of indictment against the applicant and PERSON , the editor - in - chief of the magazine at that time . It was argued that they had libelled him by publishing the articles and by disseminating untrue information alleging secret and conscious collaboration with the communist secret services . It was submitted that this publication could discredit him in the eyes of the public and result in him losing the confidence necessary to perform his duties as a public university rector , a criminal offence punishable under LAW .

Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and PERSON , but were subsequently stayed in DATE to obtain information about the result of the vetting process ( procedura lustracyjna ) in respect of GPE which was pending at the time .

At a hearing on DATE in the latter proceedings , ORG held , referring to documents stored by the ORG , that ORG had made a true vetting statement to the effect that he had not been an informant for the communist secret services . The court established that he had been registered as such , but without his consent or knowledge . It further noted that on DATE A.C. had obtained the security certificate issued by ORG guaranteeing him access to classified information . He had therefore already been positively vetted for integrity by the authorities of a democratic ORG prior to the judgment .

ORG upheld the first - instance judgment on DATE .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed .

On DATE ORG held that the applicant and editor were guilty of libel under LAW .

NORP The court found that the plaintiff had been working at ORG since DATE . He had been questioned by the communist secret police on several occasions before DATE , when the communist system in GPE had collapsed .

The applicant had contacted him , apparently by telephone , prior to publication of the first article of DATE claiming to know that he had been an informant . She had neither informed him about any ORG documents on which she would be basing her allegations nor sought to meet him in person .

The applicant stated before the court that she had written the articles motivated by the public interest . ORG was a well - known personality and society should be made aware of persons in positions of responsibility who were former informants for the NORP secret police .

The court considered that while before it the applicant had referred to ORG documents , neither the documents she had submitted originating from these files nor the full file obtained by the court had supported the conclusion that ORG had been an informant . Certain documents did not refer to him at all , while others did not indicate that he had been an informant . He had never declared willingness to become one . The court referred to a document in the ORG ’s files which noted his reluctance to be involved with the services when urged by them to turn into an informant . In these files he was only referred to as being on the staff of the university in DATE . They also demonstrated that he had been questioned by the communist services after coming back to GPE following a scholarship in GPE .

NORP The court concluded that the documents it had before it in evidence were manifestly insufficient to hold that the plaintiff had been an informant .

In the light of the documents available , the thesis advanced by the applicant was not only devoid of factual basis , but also incompatible with her obligation to show proper journalistic diligence . She had only obtained access to the full set of ORG files concerning ORG after her first article had been published . She had only received a decision from the director of the ORG allowing her to access the documents on DATE , after the article had been published and created a considerable media stir . She had failed to contact PERSON prior to the publication to try to check the veracity of the information , apart from her telephone call to him whereby she had only informed him that she would be publishing the article .

ORG concluded that the applicant had failed to show the journalistic diligence required of her under section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . The impugned articles contained unreliable information , which she had assessed in a superficial manner . Being an informant for the communist secret police was perceived in society in an extremely negative manner . It was therefore not open to doubt that allegations made by the applicant could stigmatise GPE and undermine public confidence in his capacity to hold office within the meaning of LAW . The mere fact that the court had gathered more material relevant to establishing the facts concerning ORG past than the applicant had had at her disposal prior to the publication of the impugned articles demonstrated that she had formulated her allegations without a sound factual basis . In the light of that material , it had to be concluded that the statements made in the article were untrue , or at least unfounded .

The court referred to the ORG ’s case - law on LAW on freedom of the press . It noted that that freedom carried duties and responsibilities on the part of journalists . It was limited by the criterion of truthfulness on the one hand , and the necessity to protect important values such as dignity , reputation , honour and the private life of individuals on the other . In the present case , the applicant had not had sufficient knowledge at her disposal to support the factual thesis she had advanced in the articles . She had therefore overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism , defamed the plaintiff and thereby committed a criminal offence .

The court imposed fines on the applicant and her co - defendant , the magazine ’s editor - in - chief . It determined the amount of the applicant ’s fine at MONEY ( PLN - approximately CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) and ordered her to pay LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) to charity . The court observed that the amount of the fine had been determined with regard to the degree of the applicant ’s guilt . The publication of the articles had been her idea and she had written them . However , the fine imposed on her was lower than that imposed on the editor , regard being had to the fact that her income was lower than his . The court further noted that the plaintiff had demanded that a custodial sentence be imposed on the applicant . However , the court was of the view that a non - custodial sentence was sufficient in the circumstances , commensurate with the gravity of the offence . It further ordered that the judgment be made public , having regard to a request submitted by the plaintiff and LAW , which obliged the court to allow such requests in cases involving convictions based on LAW .

The applicant and her co - accused appealed , raising many procedural arguments .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , essentially sharing the findings and views of the first - instance court . The GPE appeals were considered by the court to be unfounded . The court ordered the applicant to pay ORG MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in costs to ORG . It further ordered her and her coaccused to pay jointly the plaintiff ’s costs before the appellate court , amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);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 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The second and third applicants are the parents of the first applicant .

In DATE the first applicant , who was suffering from tachycardia and severe headaches , was diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia . In DATE he underwent treatment in various hospitals in GPE , without any tangible result .

NORP In DATE his illness worsened .

On DATE he called an ambulance and was taken to the neurology unit of ORG no . CARDINAL ( PERSON городская клиническая больница № DATE ) . The doctor in the admissions unit , however , refused to admit him , finding no pathology , and recommended outpatient treatment in a district polyclinic .

Desperate for relief , on DATE the first applicant cut the veins on his forearm . Another ambulance was called for him by the second and third applicants , and he was taken to ORG ( ORG скорой помощи им. PERSON ) . After the first applicant was provided with emergency medical aid at the surgical unit , he was taken to somatopsychiatric unit no . CARDINAL ( ПСО-CARDINAL , “ the psychiatric hospital ” ) of the ORG with a diagnosis of “ chronic somatoform pain disorder , personality disorder , continuous sluggish schizophrenia , cutting of left forearm , attempted suicide ” .

On DATE the first applicant contacted his parents , asking them to take him home . When the parents arrived , they were not allowed to take him home and were asked to leave .

During TIME DATE the first applicant alleged that he was beaten up . According to him , CARDINAL nurses held his arms and CARDINAL recovering patients hit him on the face and body . He was taken to his ward , and CARDINAL of the nurses allegedly threw him on the bed with such force that his head hit the bedside table , following which he lost consciousness . When the first applicant recovered he found himself bleeding and strapped to the bed with a gag in his mouth . He was given no medical assistance .

The first applicant was subsequently allegedly warned by a doctor , PERSON , that his parents would not be allowed to see him and that it would be put on record that he had himself initiated a brawl . Furthermore , he was allegedly warned that any complaints to the authorities , including the police , would be futile as he would be given a diagnosis which would show that his allegations could not be taken seriously .

The first applicant remained hospitalised until DATE . He alleged that he was subjected to scientific research by being treated with PERSON ( a then new antipsychotic medication ) and forbidden all contact with the outside world . He had blood tests DATE .

TIME after the first applicant ’s discharge from the psychiatric hospital on DATE , an ambulance was called for him at home due to his state of health . The ambulance doctor saw a haematoma under the first applicant ’s right eye , and bruises and contusions around his chest and waist . The first applicant was further diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and severe tachycardia . He was immediately hospitalised in GPE City Clinical Hospital no . CARDINAL ( PERSON городская клиническая больница № CARDINAL ) , where he remained until CARDINAL DATE and was diagnosed with “ depressive hypochondriasis against the background of traumatic encephalopathy ” . The diagnosis of personality disorder was not confirmed .

NORP In DATE the applicants complained to ORG that the first applicant had been unlawfully committed and treated in the psychiatric hospital , and that he had been beaten by the hospital nurses with the assistance of CARDINAL hospital patients . The ORG complaint was referred to ORG , GPE , from where it was referred on to ORG of the Interior .

After CARDINAL refusals to institute criminal proceedings , on DATE criminal proceedings were instituted ( criminal case no . DATE ) under LAW of LAW ( Beatings ) .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE and DATE an investigator from ORG of the ORG investigation department suspended the proceedings on the grounds of an impossibility of identifying the alleged perpetrators .

On DATE and DATE respectively the ORG quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for additional investigation .

On DATE the investigator discontinued the proceedings on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time - limit for prosecution .

On DATE , however , the above decision was set aside and the proceedings were reopened .

The proceedings were subsequently suspended on DATE and DATE and resumed again on unspecified dates .

In DATE the applicants were informed that the proceedings had been discontinued on DATE on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time - limit for prosecution .

On an unspecified date the decision of CARDINAL DATE was set aside and the proceedings were reopened .

On DATE the proceedings were again discontinued .

On DATE the above decision was set aside and the case file material referred to the investigation department for additional investigation , which appears still to be pending .

On DATE the complaints concerning the first applicant ’s placement in the psychiatric hospital were removed from criminal case no . DATE for separate examination .

On DATE an investigator from ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings .

On DATE the GPE ORG found the above decision unlawful and groundless .

On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG quashed the decision of DATE and ordered an additional inquiry .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( Unlawful Placement in a ORG ) .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the proceedings were suspended on the grounds of an impossibility of identifying those responsible .

However , on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively the above decisions were quashed and additional investigations ordered .

In the meantime , on DATE a forensic psychiatric examination was conducted which established that the first applicant ’s involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation on DATE had been justified ( psychiatric pathology of an acute character accompanied by expressed depression with attempted suicide ) . It was further established , however , that his subsequent stay in the psychiatric ward had been unlawful . In particular , contrary to the provisions of the relevant domestic law ( LAW DATE ) , no report had been drawn up by a panel of psychiatrists in TIME following the first applicant ’s involuntary hospitalisation on the need for a further stay in the psychiatric hospital , and no application had been made to the court by the head of the psychiatric hospital on the need for the first applicant ’s continued involuntary stay in the psychiatric hospital . It was further noted that the first applicant ’s mental health episodes DATE and DATE did not fall under the definition of a “ severe ” mental disorder or any other acute mental condition , and did not require involuntary psychiatric treatment .

In the absence of any meaningful investigation since the institution of the criminal proceedings , the applicants challenged the investigator before the court for failure to take action .

On DATE ORG found the investigator ’s failure to take action unlawful ( failure to identify and question witnesses and carry out other relevant investigative actions ) .

On DATE the head of the psychiatric hospital , NORP , was involved in the proceedings as a defendant .

On DATE NORP was questioned , and made the following statement :

“ ... [ ORG ] unit no . CARDINAL was staffed [ at the material time ] by CARDINAL attending doctors : a scientific associate , PERSON , and an attending doctor whose last name I can not remember . The question of assigning patients to a specific attending doctor was decided by PERSON , who assigned [ the first applicant ] to L. as a scientific thematic patient ( научный тематический больной ) for research on the effects of the LOC medication ...

Scientific associates monitor only scientific research patients to study scientific subjects which involve research into new methods of treatment and the use of new drugs approved by ORG , with a view to later disseminating these throughout the territory of GPE . Following the results of their research , a scientific associate writes an article about the work done and defends a dissertation based on their research material . ”

On DATE the preliminary investigation was completed , and on DATE a bill of indictment was submitted for approval to LAW .

NORP On DATE , however , the case was returned for an additional investigation , as the prosecutor considered the charges brought against NORP unsubstantiated .

On DATE the qualification of the crime with which NORP was charged was changed to LAW ) . The case - file material was sent to ORG of the Interior for further investigation .

On DATE an investigator from ORG of the ORG discontinued the proceedings on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time - limit for prosecution .

It appears that subsequently the proceedings were reopened .

In DATE the applicants were informed that on CARDINAL DATE the proceedings had again been discontinued as time - barred .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is an opposition politician and , since DATE , the chairman of the reformist wing of ORG .

On DATE the applicant was arrested during a demonstration organised by ORG and taken to the ORG where a hand grenade was allegedly found in the pocket of his suit ’s jacket . According to the applicant , the suit had been acquired immediately before the demonstration and he had not had time to remove the manufacturer ’s stitches sealing the pockets and , therefore , would not have been physically able to put anything inside the pockets .

On DATE , criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under LAW ( illegal possession of weapons ) of LAW ( in force until DATE , when it was replaced by the new Criminal Code ) .

Until DATE , the applicant was detained as a suspect . On DATE he was formally charged under LAW of LAW by the investigator of the GPE Chief Police Department . On DATE , the investigator ordered his detention on remand pending trial .

By a decision of the investigator of DATE the applicant was released from detention .

By a decision of the investigator of ORG Office of DATE , the investigation in the framework of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was suspended on the ground that “ the perpetrator of the criminal offence [ had ] not been identified ” . The applicant was not informed about the decision to suspend the investigation at that time .

NORP In the DATE and DATE parliamentary elections , the applicant was elected and re - elected to ORG for CARDINAL consecutive terms and served as a parliament member until DATE . In the elections of DATE , according to the official election results published by ORG , he was again re - elected to ORG , however on DATE ORG annulled the election results in the applicant ’s constituency in an arbitrary manner , depriving the applicant of his parliamentary seat ( see , for more details , GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The applicant held a diplomatic passport issued in DATE , which expired in DATE . On DATE he was issued a new diplomatic passport valid until DATE .

In addition , the applicant held a regular passport issued in DATE , which expired on an unspecified date in DATE ( according to the applicant ) or on DATE ( according to the Government ) .

NORP In DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for a new regular passport . However , according to the applicant , his application was rejected in an informal manner . The applicant was informed that the ORG had no information of the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted in DATE . He was told that , as the ORG could not issue passports to persons against whom criminal proceedings were pending , the applicant had to provide a statement from the relevant prosecuting authorities confirming that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued .

Following an inquiry with the GPE Chief Police Department , the applicant discovered that the criminal proceedings instituted in DATE had been transferred to ORG and suspended on DATE , but had never been discontinued .

Subsequently , the applicant complained about the authorities’ failure to discontinue the proceedings and his resulting inability to receive a passport to ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , but to no avail .

In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against the ORG and ORG , asking the court to order the ORG to issue him a passport and to order the prosecutor ’s office to “ remove the restriction on his freedom of movement ” by discontinuing the criminal proceedings instituted in DATE . He noted that , the limitation period for prosecution in respect of the criminal offence under LAW was DATE from the date of the alleged criminal offence , while under the CARDINAL Criminal Code it was DATE in respect of the equivalent criminal offence . He therefore argued that the proceedings should have been discontinued DATE owing to the expiry of the prescription period .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated . It noted that ORG had responded to the applicant ’s requests by advising him to apply to the ORG and that the applicant had been unable to demonstrate that the ORG had breached his rights .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment on the same grounds , and also added that the applicant had failed to appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to suspend the investigation under the relevant procedure of judicial supervision .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and terminated the civil proceedings . It noted that the complaints raised by the applicant , and more specifically his complaint concerning the prosecution authorities’ failure to discontinue the criminal proceedings , were subject to examination under the criminal procedure and not in the civil proceedings under the rules of civil procedure . The applicant was advised to lodge a complaint against the prosecuting authorities’ actions under the relevant procedure of judicial supervision envisaged by LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) .

In DATE the applicant lodged such a complaint under the procedure of judicial supervision provided by LAW ORG , asking the court to discontinue the criminal proceedings instituted in DATE owing to the expiry of the prescription period .

On DATE ORG dismissed this complaint , noting that , while the CCrP provided for a right to complain against a prosecuting authority ’s decision to discontinue the proceedings , the same Code did not provide for a right to complain against the prosecuting authority ’s failure to take a decision to discontinue the proceedings . Therefore , the court could not order ORG to discontinue the proceedings . Furthermore , the court noted that it had no competence under the ORG to discontinue the proceedings itself .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . No further appeal lay against ORG decision .


CASE OF ABDURAKHMANOVA AND ABDULGAMIDOVA v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person;Security of person);Violation of Article 13+2-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Life)

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The applicants are the mother and the wife of PERSON Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov ( in the documents submitted also written as ORG ) , who was born in DATE .

The second applicant and her husband Mr NORP have lived in GPE since DATE . In DATE the second applicant went to PERSON to visit her relatives . On DATE her husband Mr GPE arrived from GPE , and on the same date they went to visit Mr GPE sister ORG . at CARDINAL FAC in GPE , PERSON .

The first applicant and her husband , a federal judge of ORG in GPE , lived at LOC , GPE .

At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL officers from the LOC department of the interior in PERSON ( the PERSON ) arrived at the first applicant ’s house . One of them , who identified himself as Shamil , showed the first applicant arrest warrant no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL issued in the name of her son Mr PERSON and signed by Captain A. Plugin , the investigator of ORG ( the ORG ) . According to the warrant , PERSON Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov was suspected , amongst other things , of involvement in terrorist activities .

Meanwhile , on DATE the second applicant and her husband Mr NORP were visiting their relative ORG . in PERSON . At TIME on that date , a group of CARDINAL men , some of whom were in black masks , arrived at the house of ORG . in a black VAZ-CARDINAL ( ‘ Приора’ ) car with the registration number containing the numbers CARDINAL or CARDINAL and the letters ORG . CARDINAL of them told the second applicant that they were from the police . The men abducted PERSON Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov next to the house , in the street . First they fired shots at his feet , then they knocked him down , dragged him into the car and drove off . The abduction took place in broad daylight and in the presence of a number of witnesses , including neighbours and the applicants’ relatives .

Shortly after the ORG departure , several police officers in uniform and plain clothes arrived at the scene of the shooting in QUANTITY police cars ; without giving any explanation they collected the cartridge cases left after the incident .

The Government did not dispute the applicants’ account of the circumstances of the abduction , stating that it “ does not contradict the information collected by the authorities during the course of the investigation ” .

At TIME on DATE , immediately after the incident , the second applicant in PERSON called the first applicant in PERSON and informed her about the abduction .

In TIME of DATE the first applicant complained about the abduction to ORG and ORG office . She stated that on DATE of the abduction she had been visited by a group of CARDINAL officers from the PERSON who had showed her a warrant for her son ’s arrest issued by the ORG Captain PERSON ; that shortly after their visit the second applicant had called her from Kaspiysk and told her about the abduction of Mr PERSON by a group of armed men who had opened fire and that shortly after the incident a group of police officers had collected the cartridge cases left at the scene .

On DATE the Dagestan FSB replied to the first applicant that they had forwarded her complaint to ORG office . On DATE the latter informed her that they had forwarded the complaint to the ORG prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the first applicant complained about the abduction to ORG of the Interior ( the ORG ) , and provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction , including the police ORG visit to her house and the collection of the cartridge cases after the ORG departure . On DATE the Dagestan MVD informed her that they had forwarded her complaint to the NORP town department of the interior ( the ORG ) .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that they had forwarded her complaint to their investigations department for a preliminary inquiry .

DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office forwarded CARDINAL requests to various law - enforcement agencies , asking them to establish the whereabouts of Mr PERSON and inform them about his possible detention and the reason for it . They also asked for a copy of the arrest warrant used by the police officers from the Sovetskiy ROVD and for information on whether Mr PERSON had been involved in extremist or illegal activities .

On DATE the first applicant complained about the abduction to the PERSON prosecutor ’s office and asked whether a criminal case had been opened to investigate the incident , and if so what was the progress of the proceedings .

On DATE , DATE the first applicant again lodged a complaint about her son ’s abduction with the investigations department of the PERSON prosecutor ’s office . The complaint stated , amongst other things , that the abduction had been perpetrated by police officers in broad daylight and in the presence of numerous witnesses . The applicant asked the authorities to take urgent steps to investigate and to protect her son . In particular , she requested the investigators to take the following measures : granting her victim status in the criminal case ; questioning a number of eyewitnesses to the abduction , including the second applicant , PERSON . , ORG , PERSON , and PERSON ; establishing whether any criminal charges had been pending against Mr PERSON and whether he had been on the authorities’ wanted list ; identification of the QUANTITY police officers who had visited the applicant in GPE on DATE and seizure of the warrant signed by PERSON ; identification of the latter and of the ORG car .

On DATE the first applicant requested the PERSON prosecutor ’s office to take additional investigative steps to establish her son ’s whereabouts . In particular , she asked them to request information from various detention centres in ORG in case Mr PERSON had been detained there , and to initiate a criminal investigation into the abduction .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer complained to the ORG investigator PERSON about the abduction and the warrant used by the police officers from the PERSON . The complaint gave a detailed description of the incident and stated that the officers had showed the first applicant a warrant allegedly signed by him . On DATE Captain PERSON replied stating “ ... no orders to detain Mr NORP have been given to the PERSON ... ” and that the applicants should complain about the abduction to the prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the first applicant again complained to the head of ORG and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She asserted that Mr NORP had been abducted by police or ORG officers from ORG , and requested the law - enforcement agencies to assist her in establishing his whereabouts .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG . She provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction and stressed that the warrant under outgoing no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL allegedly signed by ORG could have been forged by the police officers . She also stated that the abductors had told the second applicant that they were from the police and that all her efforts to establish her son ’s whereabouts by complaining to local lawenforcement agencies had not produced any tangible results . The applicant further stated that she had learned from an unidentified source that on DATE a special operation had been conducted by the police or the ORG officers against her son , and requested the authorities to carry out an effective investigation of the incident .

On DATE the first applicant again complained about the abduction to PERSON . On DATE they replied to her that her complaint had been forwarded to ORG office .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the head of ORG . She stated that her son had been abducted by members of law - enforcement agencies and that the responses received by her from ORG had not provided any meaningful information . The applicant asked whether any criminal proceedings were pending against her son , whether he was suspected of a crime , and whether ORG had issued the order for her son ’s arrest . She also requested to be informed about her son ’s whereabouts and the reasons for his detention . On an unspecified date in DATE ORG replied to the applicant stating that her son had not been charged with any offence and that they had not ordered the Sovetskiy ROVD to detain him .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG , the head of ORG and the head of GPE about the unlawful detention of her son Mr PERSON by members of law - enforcement agencies . She also requested to be informed whether her son was a suspect in criminal case no . DATE , and if so what charges had been brought against him .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer requested information from the Dagestan Prosecutor ’s office concerning the criminal charges against Mr PERSON and the place of his unlawful detention .

On DATE the applicants again complained about the abduction to ORG and PERSON . They stated that local law - enforcement agencies had consistently denied any involvement in the abduction of Mr PERSON , but the head of the Sovetskiy ROVD had told them that their relative had been detained by ROVD officers and handed over to GPE ( the ORG ) ( “ Центр по противодействию экстремизму и терроризму ORG РФ по GPE ” ) . However , according to the applicants , the latter agency had denied detaining Mr PERSON .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG complained on the applicants’ behalf to the head of ORG and the NORP Minister of the ORG . The complaint stated that the abduction of Mr NORP had most probably been perpetrated by members of law - enforcement agencies , officers of the Sovetskiy ROVD in particular , and that the criminal investigation into the incident was ineffective .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed ORG that they had forwarded the complaint about Mr PERSON ’s abduction to the prosecutor ’s office .

In reply to the ORG ’s request for a copy of the investigation file on the abduction of Mr NORP the Government produced the relevant documents , which ran to CARDINAL pages . Their contents can be summarised as follows :

On DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr PERSON under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned her . She provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction , including the police ORG visit to her house in GPE , and stated that she had learned from unidentified sources that her son had been detained at a base of the Dagestan CTC .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative ORG . , who stated that she had witnessed Mr GPE abduction by a group of CARDINAL men in plain clothes , CARDINAL of whom were masked . According to the witness , the abductors had opened fire and forced Mr GPE into a black VAZCARDINAL ( ‘ GPE ) car with the registration number either PERSON or ORG . The numerous neighbours who had also witnessed the abduction had later told her that the abductors had used CARDINAL black VAZ-CARDINAL cars .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON and the second applicant , whose statements about the events were similar to that of PERSON . The second applicant added that TIME after the abduction CARDINAL police cars had arrived at the place of the skirmish . A group of police officers , both uniformed and plain clothes , had searched the ground with flash lights looking for the spent bullet cartridges .

On DATE the head of the criminal search division of the Kaspiysk ROVD informed the investigators that they had been unable to identify any witnesses to the abduction .

From the documents submitted it follows that on CARDINAL DATE the head of Police Station no . CARDINAL in GPE sent the investigators letter no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , stating that on DATE CARDINAL of their police officers , PERSON , GPE , ORG and GPE , following the order of ORG of DATE given as part of the investigation of criminal case no . DATE , had arrived at the house of the judge of the LOC district of GPE Mr Sh . A. to establish the whereabouts of his son PERSON GPE GPE . The police officers had questioned the first applicant who had told them that her son and his wife were in GPE . The police officers had not participated in Mr GPE arrest .

On DATE the head of the ORG of ORG examined the criminal case file opened into the abduction . He criticised the investigators for their failure to take a number of steps , and ordered that remedial measures be taken . In particular , the document stated the following :

“ ... The case file examination demonstrated that the investigation is being conducted without purpose , that most important circumstances of the crime are not being established and clarified , and that the necessary steps to establish them are not being taken ...

[ The applicant ] PERSON stated that at TIME on DATE CARDINAL men had arrived at her house . They had introduced themselves as servicemen from the Sovetskiy ROVD in GPE . CARDINAL of them named PERSON had shown her an arrest warrant for her son Mr A. Abdurakhmanov signed by the ORG investigator PERSON ...

Later on DATE she had learnt of her son ’s abduction in Kaspiysk by unknown masked persons ... who fired weapons during the incident and absconded from the crime scene . Shortly afterwards policemen had arrived at the scene and , according to the neighbours , had collected the cartridge cases and left .

To verify PERSON statements it is necessary to take the following steps :

- identifying the policemen who had visited her house as well as the investigator from the Sovetskiy ROVD named Shamil ...

- questioning all the policemen in PERSON who were on duty on DATE to find out whether they were called to a scene of shooting and abduction at CARDINAL FAC ...

- questioning all the witnesses , including the neighbours in FAC , about the events , and finding out the registration numbers of the cars used by the policemen who had arrived at the scene after the abduction ...

... in the letter from ORG of CARDINAL DATE it is stated that the ORG had sent a letter to ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) concerning PERSON , in which it was stated that ORG had been investigating case no . CARDINAL concerning ... a bandit group which had planned murders of policemen in GPE as well as terrorist attacks . CARDINAL of that group ’s members was PERSON ... who had maintained close contact with active members of the bandit subversive movement and had aided and abetted them . In particular , PERSON had sheltered in his flat armed members of the bandit subversive movement who were hiding from the authorities ...

The investigation of criminal case no . DATE opened by ORG obtained information concerning activities of an organised armed group in ORG and GPE which was aiding and abetting the armed bandit subversive movement in PERSON ... the investigation received information concerning Mr A. GPE ’s involvement in the activities of that group ...

In connection with the above , it is necessary that the investigators :

- write to the ORG investigator PERSON concerning the operational search measures to be taken against Mr PERSON ... ”

On DATE the ORG informed the investigators of the following :

“ ... the ORG investigations department is investigating criminal case no . DATE concerning ... members of the illegal armed group “ LOC ” .

PERSON and PERSON have been charged in the criminal case with membership of illegal armed groups ... Mr PERSON is a witness to their criminal activity . In this connection , a request for operational search measures ( outgoing no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) to establish his whereabouts and question him has been forwarded to PERSON ... ”

On DATE the investigators requested ORG of the Dagestan MVD to oblige police officers PERSON , GPE , ORG and GPE to provide statements for the investigation concerning the abduction . The letter stated , amongst other things , that the first applicant had insisted that her son ’s abduction had been perpetrated by police officers from the PERSON CTC .

On DATE , DATE , the investigation of the criminal case was suspended . The applicants were not informed thereof .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the ORG failure to take basic steps to investigate the abduction . On DATE the applicants were informed by ORG that an investigation into the abduction was in progress .

On DATE the applicants requested the investigators to take a number of actions , including questioning the heads of ORG of the ORG ( the ORG ) to find out whether any special operations had been carried out in the settlement on DATE and the reason for the collection of the cartridge cases from the crime scene after the shooting ; questioning the head of the Sovetskiy ROVD to establish the reason for the police ORG visit to the first applicant ’s house on DATE ; and questioning the head of the ORG CTC to establish whether Mr NORP had been taken to their LOC and if so why this had been done .

On DATE the head of ORG criticised the investigators for an unlawful and premature suspension of the investigation , and ordered that the investigation be resumed and a number of steps be taken .

On DATE the investigators questioned police officers GPE and GPE , both of whom stated that on DATE they had visited the first applicant ’s house to establish the whereabouts of PERSON GPE GPE on suspicion of his membership of illegal armed groups . The first applicant had told them that her son was not at home . The witnesses had then left the house and had subsequently learnt of the abduction from a local newspaper .

On DATE the applicants complained to the head of ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG about the ORG failure to take basic steps to investigate the abduction in spite of numerous pieces of evidence implicating law - enforcement officers in the crime . They requested that the investigators be ordered to expedite the investigation and identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the deputy head of ORG rejected the ORG complaint as groundless .

From the documents submitted it follows that the proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG of PERSON ( the district court ) . She provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding her son ’s abduction and alleged that he had been abducted by members of law - enforcement agencies . The applicant requested the district court to order the prosecutor ’s office to take a number of essential investigative steps and to provide her with information concerning the whereabouts of Mr GPE .

On DATE the court requested PERSON to inform it whether the police officers had arrested the applicants’ relative .

On DATE the Dagestan MVD replied to the court , stating the following :

“ ... on DATE ... a group of officers from the ROVD , including Major PERSON , Senior Lieutenants PERSON and ORG and Lieutenant PERSON , following the investigator ’s order no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE issued as part of the criminal case no . DATE opened under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( money counterfeiting ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( terrorist activity ) of LAW , visited [ the first applicant ’s house in GPE ] in order to establish the whereabouts of Mr PERSON , who was suspected of committing the above crimes ... ”

The letter further stated that no further information about the visit was available .

On DATE the district court rejected the applicant ’s complaint of DATE . The decision stated , amongst other things , the following :

“ ... from the letter of the head of the ORG FSB Mr ORG , outgoing no . CARDINAL dated DATE , it follows that order no . CARDINAL dated DATE was issued by ORG of the Dagestan FSB as part of criminal case no . DATE , to establish the whereabouts of Mr GPE ... Following this order the officers of the Sovetskiy ROVD visited the home of [ the first applicant ] PERSON and took a statement from her concerning her son ’s whereabouts . Their actions do not contravene LAW On Operational and Search Activity ” .... ”

The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had abducted Mr PERSON were ORG agents . In support of their complaint , they referred to the following facts . Mr PERSON was suspected by the authorities of membership of illegal armed groups ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) ; TIME prior to the abduction CARDINAL officers from the Sovetskiy ROVD visited the first applicant ’s house in GPE and showed the ORG warrant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) . Then , in GPE , TIME , CARDINAL of the abductors identified himself as a police officer and shortly after the abduction the police arrived at the scene and removed the spent cartridges to cover the ORG tracks . The perpetrators were violent and opened fire without hesitation , in the presence of a number of witnesses . The applicants further stated that since Mr NORP had been missing for DATE at the time of the submission of their observations to the ORG , he could be presumed dead . That presumption was further supported by the circumstances in which he had been abducted , which should be recognised as life - threatening .

The Government submitted that the applicants’ relative had been abducted by unidentified men and that neither the ORG behaviour nor their vehicles provided for any firm evidence that they were ORG agents . The Government further contended that there was no evidence that Mr NORP was dead .

The ORG observes that in its extensive case - law it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of matters in dispute , in particular when faced with allegations of violations of fundamental rights ( for a most recent summary of these , see PERSON v. “ the former GPE ” [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

More specifically , the ORG has adjudicated a series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in the NORP LOC . Applying the above - mentioned principles , it has concluded that it would be sufficient for the applicants to make a prima facie case of abduction of the missing persons by ORG agents , thus falling within the control of the authorities , and it would then be for the Government to discharge their burden of proof , either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , for example , concerning abductions in ORG , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . If the Government failed to rebut this presumption , that would entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof could not be reversed ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

In view of the parties’ submission concerning the circumstances of the abduction ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , the ORG concludes that the materials in its possession demonstrate the validity of the ORG allegation , for the following reasons . Firstly , the abductors , who arrived in a civilian vehicle , acted as an organised group and did not hesitate to open fire and perpetrate the abduction in the street , in daylight and in the presence of witnesses . CARDINAL of them told the second applicant that they were from the police . Secondly , a group of local police officers arrived at the crime scene shortly after the incident and collected the cartridge cases left by the abductors . Thirdly , the police officers’ visit to the first applicant ’s house in GPE looking for Mr NORP on suspicion of his involvement in terrorist activities , TIME prior to his abduction in Kaspiysk , provides grounds to believe that these CARDINAL events were interconnected . Further , the investigators took no meaningful steps to check whether the abduction could have been perpetrated for other reasons , such as a blood feud , ransom , drugs or hostility . No serious steps were taken to verify those hypotheses and no information was obtained that the abductors could have been other than ORG agents ( see , by contrast , PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § MONEY , DATE ) . Lastly , the procrastination of the authorities in the investigation into the matter , along with the ORG consistent allegations that law - enforcement officers were involved in the incident ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) , provide the ORG with the grounds to conclude that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relative Mr PERSON was abducted by ORG agents . The Government ’s statement that the investigators found no evidence that members of lawenforcement authorities were involved in PERSON GPE disappearance is insufficient to discharge them from the above - mentioned burden of proof . Having examined the documents submitted by the parties and drawing inferences from the Government ’s failure to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question , the ORG finds that Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov was apprehended on DATE by ORG agents ( see , for a similar situation , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

There has been no reliable news of Mr PERSON since his arrest . The Government have not submitted any explanation as to what happened to him afterwards .

DATE . The ORG finds that , in a situation where a person is detained by unidentified police officers without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention and is then missing for DATE , that situation can be regarded as life - threatening . The absence of Mr PERSON or of any news of him for DATE supports this assumption .

Accordingly , the ORG finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that Mr PERSON must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by ORG agents .


CASE OF PETRESKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

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

Aleš Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was employed by ORG ( ORG за разузнавање , “ the employer ” ) .

On DATE she was dismissed from work as redundant given that internal regulations ( Правилник за систематизација на работните места , “ the Regulations ” ) of DATE provided for reduced number of employees for posts such as the post held by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant challenged her dismissal before ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) .

After CARDINAL remittal orders , on DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant ’s claim , finding that she had been dismissed on DATE on the basis of the ORG , which had been adopted by the employer and approved by the Government on DATE . It further found that the ORG ’s approval had been received by the employer on DATE , but that had been irrelevant given that it was only the date when approval had been given by the ORG that was important for the entry into force of the LAW .

On DATE the applicant appealed , arguing inter alia that the ORG could not have applied to her case , as it could only be adopted after the employer had received the ORG ’s approval . The applicant relied on another final judgment of ORG ( “ the appellate court ” ) in a similar case concerning a former colleague of the applicant , in which it had been established that the ORG had not entered into force at the time of the dismissal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She contended that under the relevant law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the Regulations could only be adopted after the Government ’s approval had been obtained .

On DATE the appellate court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It found that the Government had approved the Regulations on DATE , that they had entered into force DATE , and that the applicant ’s dismissal of CARDINAL DATE was therefore lawful .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . In it she argued , inter alia , that the ORG could only be adopted after the ORG ’s approval had been obtained , and that they had thus not entered into force at the time of her dismissal . She referred to the earlier judgment of the appellate court ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and argued that it had deviated from its established practice on the matter without providing any reasons . She further contended that the dismissal of her former colleagues , which had been based on the same grounds , had been quashed and they had been reinstated to their posts .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . It found that on DATE the ORG had approved the ORG , which had thus entered into force the same day . On DATE the applicant was served with ORG judgment .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Şırnak .

On DATE a demonstration was held in the Gemlik district of the city of ORG by ORG of ORG and ORG Relatives ( Tutuklu ve ORG Yakınları Yardımlaşma ve ORG – “ Tuhay - Der ” ) in order to protest about the conditions of detention in prisons , and in particular those of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( ORG , an illegal armed organisation .

On DATE a group who had attended the demonstration in PERSON returned to Cizre , a district of Şırnak , and a gathering was held in front of the building of the Cizre branch of ORG ( ORG – “ DEHAP ” ) . The applicant , as president of the PERSON branch of the DEHAP , made a speech during that gathering .

On DATE the NORP public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG against the applicant and CARDINAL others . The applicant was charged with disseminating propaganda in favour of a criminal organisation and its goals , proscribed by LAW of LAW , on account of his speech on DATE . The public prosecutor submitted that the following passages in the speech constituted propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation :

“ ... We want peace in this country . Those who wish for war prevent us from having peace . As you know , Mr PERSON , the leader of the NORP people , called for a ceasefire DATE . The Government have failed to take a proper view of that DATE unilateral ceasefire and therefore the war has re - started . We have once again started to receive the bodies of guerrillas and soldiers . We want an end to the crying of the mothers of guerrillas and soldiers . We want peace . Mr PERSON has not been able to meet his lawyers or members of his family for DATE . We believe that that sanction is harmful to the peace process . ”

On DATE ORG accepted the bill of indictment .

On DATE upon the request of ORG , ORG obtained the applicant ’s defence statements . The applicant contended that he had not praised an illegal organisation in his speech and that he had not intended to disseminate propaganda . He noted that he had only thanked those who had made an effort to bring about peace . The applicant finally stated that the slogans chanted by the crowd during his speech had promoted peace .

ORG held CARDINAL hearings on the merits of the case and obtained a report by an expert on the video - recordings of the gathering of DATE , which stated that the applicant had made a speech to a crowd . Subsequently , on DATE , ORG issued a decision that it lacked jurisdiction as it considered that the acts of the accused should be examined under LAW ( Law no . ORG ) . The case was transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered an expert to examine the video - recordings of the gathering of DATE .

On DATE the applicant made a statement to ORG . He contended that he had not disseminated propaganda during his speech but had only thanked those who had worked for peace and had also condemned PERSON solitary confinement . The applicant denied the allegation that he had referred to PERSON as the leader of the NORP people . He further noted that there had been no violent incidents during or after his speech . Following his speech the demonstrators had dispersed quietly and the slogans that had been chanted while he spoke had been peaceful .

According to the report , dated CARDINAL DATE , on the examination of the police video - recordings of the gathering of DATE submitted by the expert to the first - instance court , the applicant had made the following speech :

“ ... Friends , I would like to say a few words about how grateful we are to you . First of all , as you already know , we left Şırnak to go to the peace meeting , PERSON meeting which was organised by PERSON . As a result of the arbitrary security measures taken by the security forces and the fact that we were forced to wait TIME at each checkpoint for identity checks , we were not able to travel as fast as we wanted . For us , those who conducted themselves in such a manner are the people who do not want peace in this country ( his speech is interrupted by applause and ululations ) . Subsequently , we were taken into police custody because of our democratic reaction to the search order . We were kept in police custody for TIME and then taken before a court . The court released us . However , it took a decision to place me under judicial control . I have to go to give my signature every DATE and I am banned from travelling abroad ( His speech is interrupted by boos and the slogan ‘ LOC uzanan eller ORG ( ‘ May those hands which aim to damage peace be broken’ ) . We condemn with contempt the mentality which obstructed the meeting in PERSON ; we condemn with contempt the fact that Mr PERSON , the Minister of ORG , called us ‘ ORG as well as the mentality which prevented the peace meeting from taking place and which blocked and attacked the crowds . CARDINAL vehicles were burned . A person lost his life and CARDINAL were injured . We condemn with contempt the mentality which is against your and the NORP people ’s sensibility , your wish for peace and the meeting on peace . We want peace in this country . We want harmony . Those who are against unity and solidarity in this country and those who do not want this country to reach modernity , that is to say , who obtain an unjustified gain out of this war , prevent us from having peace ... As you know , PERSON PERSON , the leader of the NORP people ( His speech is interrupted by the slogan ‘ Biji Serok Apo’ ( ‘ Long live President ORG ) called for a ceasefire DATE . The Government have failed to take a proper view of that DATE unilateral ceasefire and therefore the war has re - started . We have once again started to receive the bodies of guerrillas and soldiers . We want an end to the crying of the mothers of guerrillas and soldiers in this country . We want peace in this country . We will continue our struggle for peace . The demonstration organised by ORG will contribute to peace because a DATE ceasefire has been declared . Mr PERSON has not been able to meet his lawyers or members of his family for the last three and a half months . We believe that that sanction is harmful to the peace process . That is why we participated in the peace march that was organised by PERSON . We thank those who attended that demonstration for their wish for peace and for their determination , despite injustice and obstructions . We hope that our friends who were injured will recover soon . We condemn with contempt those who obstructed the peace march . We want peace and we will continue to struggle for peace . I thank you all . You can disperse now in silence ... ”

According to the report , the demonstrators waved yellow , red and green pieces of cloth and carried photographs of PERSON . Some of the applicant ’s co - accused were seen chanting slogans or carrying photographs of PERSON . In particular , one of them chanted the slogans “ ORG ” ( “ Long live President FAC ) and “ GPE diş kana kan , seninleyiz FAC ( “ A tooth for a tooth , blood for blood , we are with you NORP ” ) for periods of CARDINAL and TIME respectively . Another accused was seen chanting the slogans “ PERSON dısa serhildan serokeme Öcalan ” ( “ Rise up again and again , our president is ORG ) , “ PERSON yıldıramaz ” ( “ We will not be defeated by oppression ” ) , “ ORG halktır . PERSON . ” ( “ The ORG is the people . The people are here . ” ) , “ Şırnak ovası PKK’nin yuvası ” ( “ PERSON is the home of the NORP ” ) for periods of CARDINAL while waving a photograph of PERSON . Some other demonstrators also chanted the slogan “ Savaşta barışta seninleyiz ORG ( “ In war and in peace we are with you NORP ” ) .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . The court noted that those who disseminated propaganda in favour of the ORG were expressing their support and approval for the ORG , whose methods were those of terrorism and violence . The court accordingly considered that the dissemination of propaganda in favour of that organisation essentially amounted to incitement to violence and the use of terrorist methods . The first - instance court further noted that it was a well - known fact that during illegal demonstrations and meetings ORG members and supporters disseminated propaganda by way of waving photographs of the leader of the ORG and yellow , red and green pieces of cloth , symbolising the so - called flag of the ORG . The court thus concluded that on DATE the accused had disseminated propaganda by acting in support of the ORG ’s aims and by their acts in front of the building of the Cizre branch of the DEHAP .

As regards the applicant , ORG also noted that he had referred to PERSON as “ the leader of the NORP people ” and to members of the ORG who had been killed as “ guerrillas ” . The court also found it established that the applicant had directed the demonstrators who had chanted slogans in favour of the ORG , waved yellow , red and green pieces of cloth and carried photographs of PERSON . ORG further noted that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as amended by PERSON no . DATE , which had entered into force on DATE , was more favourable to the applicant than the previous version of the same provision in force on the date the applicant had committed the acts that constituted the basis for his conviction ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a result , the first - instance court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , as amended by PERSON no . DATE , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The court also ordered that LAW , CARDINAL of the Criminal Code should apply in respect of the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .