Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a teacher in primary school and at the material time she was a member and secretary of the local branch of the trade union of ORG and ORG LOC ) .

On DATE the applicant participated in a demonstration organised by the above mentioned trade union on the theme “ No to violence against women ” .

On DATE ORG imposed a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand on the applicant for her participation in the aforementioned demonstration under LAW of the Law no . CARDINAL on ORG .

On DATE the applicant objected to this decision and requested its annulment .

On DATE ORG of the LOC governor dismissed the applicant ’s objection considering that the contested decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment .


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

Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

In DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , a socially - owned company , granted a specially protected tenancy to its employee PERSON and his family of a flat in NORP . During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the so - called “ GPE ” ( NORP autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter “ LOC ” ) . The town of NORP was close to the border of LOC . There were targeted killings of NORP civilians by members of the NORP police and army in the NORP area during a prolonged period in DATE and DATE ( see PERSON , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) . Owing to this situation , PERSON and his wife PERSON , both being of NORP national origin , left the town of ORG and went to live with their relatives in GPE . They left their belongings , such as furniture and household appliances , in the flat in NORP .

In DATE the socially - owned company ORG was transformed into a joint - stock company and became ORG ( ORG ) . It remained ORG - owned and ORG - controlled . It owned several companies , CARDINAL of them being ORG company ( PERSON “ PERSON ) which since DATE managed all the flats having been previously owned by the former ORG company . Another company was ORG , which was privatised in DATE . From DATE the ORG ceased to have any share in the ownership of ORG .

On DATE ORG enacted ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , hereinafter “ LAW ” ) with regulations on the sale of socially - owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy . In general , the LAW entitled the holder of a specially protected tenancy of a socially - owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions .

The applicant and his family lived in the town of ORG in their house . ORG was occupied by NORP paramilitary forces in DATE . The applicant and his family moved to NORP as displaced persons . The applicant found employment with ORG .

In DATE the applicant and his family moved into the flat where GPE and GPE had a specially protected tenancy . According to the applicant the flat was allocated to him and his family by his employer . According to the Government , during the proceedings before the domestic courts the applicant did not produce any document which showed the flat as having been allocated to him . PERSON and the applicant communicated on several occasions by telephone and PERSON agreed that the applicant and his family , as displaced persons , could temporarily occupy the flat .

On DATE the ORG company brought a civil action in ORG against GPE and GPE , seeking the termination of their specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue . The applicant gave oral evidence as a witness in those proceedings . He stated that he did not know where PERSON was . PERSON and GPE , having been adjudged to be persons whose whereabouts were unknown , had a special guardian ad litem appointed to represent them in the proceedings . On DATE ORG terminated GPE and GPE ’s specially protected tenancy on the grounds that they had abandoned the flat in question . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and thus became final .

On DATE GPE and GPE lodged an application for the reopening of civil proceedings which had been completed with final effect . A copy of that application was served on ORG company . The application was granted on DATE and the proceedings were reopened . The applicant participated in the reopened proceedings as an intervener on the side of the plaintiff .

On DATE , ORG and the ORG company concluded an agreement to sell the flat at issue to the applicant , under LAW . A copy of the contract was submitted to ORG for approval , which was given on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action by ORG company to terminate the specially protected tenancy held by GPE and GPE That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and thus became final .

After the NORP authorities had gained control over ORG in DATE , the applicant and his family sought reconstruction assistance for their house in ORG to be repaired , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s request and granted him and his family the sum of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) to repair their house in ORG .

The applicant and his family confirmed to the administrative authorities that they had returned to ORG on DATE . They had their registered residence in ORG DATE and DATE .

In DATE GPE and GPE brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) against the parties to the DATE contract of sale , seeking the annulment of that contract . During the proceedings PERSON died . The claim was dismissed by ORG on the grounds that the contract of sale had been concluded in accordance with the law , since at that time the applicant had had a specially protected tenancy of the flat in question .

ORG judgment was reversed on CARDINAL DATE by ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) . It established that ORG had not lost her specially protected tenancy since it had been restored to her and therefore the contract of sale had been concluded in breach of the mandatory rules of LAW . It also held that the applicant had known the circumstances in which the former holders of the specially protected tenancy had left the flat at issue as well as that they had lodged a request for the re - opening of the proceedings in which their specially protected tenancy had been terminated . Therefore , the impugned contract of sale was contrary to morals and constitutional principles and therefore null and void under section CARDINAL ) of LAW . The judgment was upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . He relied on Article CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In essence he complained about the annulment of his title to the flat by ORG . In particular , in his constitutional complaint he wrote , inter alia :

“ The complainant ’s right to inviolability of ownership guaranteed by LAW was violated by the decisions of ORG and ORG because the unconstitutional decision of ORG interferes with the complainant ’s ownership ... ”

The Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on DATE holding that the case did not raise any constitutional issues .

The applicant is still living in the flat at issue .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was prosecuted for drug dealing and running a criminal syndicate , together with CARDINAL codefendants . He was first arrested on DATE for selling heroin but released DATE on the undertaking to appear .

On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody . Subsequently , the criminal case against the applicant was joined with a number of other investigations into drug dealing . On DATE the charges against the applicant were reformulated . He was charged with creating and operating a criminal syndicate , CARDINAL counts of drug dealing , CARDINAL counts of attempted drug dealing and money laundering .

The facts concerning the applicant ’s pre - trial detention are summarised in the table below .

On DATE and DATE and on other dates ORG granted further extensions of the authorised detention period .

According to the information submitted by the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant who remained detained until that date .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

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

On DATE , in inheritance proceedings following the applicant ’s grandmother ’s death , the applicant ’s relative , PERSON , and the applicant ’s father were declared the beneficiaries in respect of a house , which was not registered in the land register , by a decision of ORG ( PERSON u NORP ) .

On DATE PERSON brought a civil action against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) asking that court to recognise his ownership of a share of CARDINAL of an inherited piece of property and to order the applicant to allow him to register his ownership in the land register . He set the value of the dispute ( vrijednost predmeta spora ) at CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) .

In the proceedings before the first - instance court , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant contested the value of the dispute and suggested that it be set at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

At the hearing held on DATE the applicant , inter alia , withdrew her objection to the value of the dispute as indicated by the claimant , and stated that she agreed with it .

In its judgment of DATE the ORG accepted PERSON ’s claim .

NORP The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) and on DATE the second - instance court dismissed her appeal as ill - founded , upholding the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) , challenging the lower courts’ judgments .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris . It interpreted PERSON ’s civil action as being composed of CARDINAL separate claims arising from different factual and legal bases - the first one for recognition of ownership , and the second for obtaining an order securing the registration of his ownership in the land register ( hereinafter “ the issuance of a clausula intabulandi ” ) . ORG thus halved the value of the dispute and held that the value of each claim did not reach the necessary ratione valoris threshold of HRK CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for an appeal on points of law to be admissible . The relevant part of this decision reads as follows :

“ The claimant in his civil action indicated the value of the dispute as HRK CARDINAL .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CPA [ ( LAW ) ] , if the claims in the civil action arise from a variety of grounds , or different claimants put forward individual claims or individual claims are raised against several defendants , the value of the dispute must be established in accordance with the value of each individual claim .

In the instant case the claimant made CARDINAL non - monetary claims , CARDINAL concerning property rights - for recognition of ownership - , and a claim under the law on obligations - for the issuance of a clausula intabulandi , namely for obtaining an order securing registration of his ownership in the land register . Therefore , the value of the dispute has to be established in relation to the value of the dispute of each claim . Consequently , the value of the dispute of each claim ... has to be established by dividing the indicated unique value of the dispute by [ these ] CARDINAL [ claims ] .

Given that the claimant indicated the [ unique ] value of the dispute as HRK CARDINAL , and that this amount should be divided by [ the number of the claims ] , the value of the dispute of each claim does not exceed the amount of CARDINAL . It follows that an appeal on points of law by the defendant is inadmissible . ”

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , arguing that PERSON ’s action had CARDINAL aspects which could not be separated , and that ORG decision finding that the case concerned CARDINAL separate claims had therefore been arbitrary and had violated her right to a fair hearing , in particular her right of access to ORG , as guaranteed under LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . It held that the applicant in her constitutional complaint “ did not demonstrate that ORG had failed to respect the provisions of the LAW concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms , namely that it had applied relevant law in an arbitrary manner ” and that therefore “ the present case did not raise a constitutional issue . ” Its decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicants , Mr PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They all live in FAC and were represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The first applicant died on DATE .

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

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

During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control over CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the “ GPE ” ( NORP autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter “ LOC ” ) . At DATE the NORP authorities announced their intention to take military action with the aim of regaining control over “ LOC ” . The operation was codenamed “ Storm ” and took place from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . Before the military action , the vast majority of the population of “ LOC ” had fled GPE . They went firstly to GPE , and later on many of them went to live in GPE . Some returned to GPE after the war . The number of people who fled is estimated at CARDINAL .

In DATE the authorities learned that a close relative of the applicants , ORG , had been killed during the operation “ Storm ” or immediately afterwards , in DATE , on the territory of “ LOC ” . The police opened an inquiry into the circumstances of his death .

NORP In DATE the police interviewed the first and second applicants , who had no direct knowledge about the circumstances in which ORG had died .

M.L. , also interviewed in DATE , said that in DATE she had been in a convoy comprising people , tractors and “ military armoured vehicles ” . ORG had also been in that convoy . He had been dressed in a NORP army uniform and had been wearing an army mask . The convoy had been attacked but she had not seen how ORG had died . PERSON , interviewed at the same time , confirmed PERSON ’s statement .

On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG Attorney ’s ORG against unknown perpetrators in connection with the killing of ORG

On DATE the body of ORG was exhumed . It was dressed in a military uniform with a military identity card .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG dismissed the applicants’ criminal complaint on the grounds that ORG had been killed in combat between a unit of the paramilitary NORP forces and LAW of the ORG of GPE . This decision was served on the ORG representative on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general}

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

The applicant suffers from a so - called psycho - social disability . On DATE the ORG found a violation of LAW concerning his psychiatric detention ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG placed the applicant under partial guardianship . As an automatic consequence flowing from LAW ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time , his name was deleted from the electoral register .

On DATE the ORG reviewed the applicant ’s situation and restored his legal capacity in all areas but health care matters . This change , however , did not restore his electoral rights .

The applicant could not vote in the general elections held in GPE on DATE , due to the restriction on his legal capacity which resulted in the deprivation of his electoral rights .


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 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

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

They fled GPE on account of fears of persecution related to the first applicant ’s activity as a journalist and his political activism .

After arriving in GPE on DATE they filed applications for asylum , which were rejected by ORG français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides – OFPRA ) , on DATE , then by ORG ( PERSON nationale du droit DATE PERSON ) , on DATE . Their subsequent requests for re - examination were also rejected .

On DATE the prefect of Loiret issued orders rejecting the applicants’ requests for leave to remain and obliging them to leave NORP territory . On DATE ORG , on an appeal from the applicants , refused to overturn those orders .

The first applicant was arrested by the police in connection with a theft on TIME of CARDINAL DATE and was taken into police custody that DATE . The second and third applicants were arrested DATE at the reception centre for asylum seekers ( LOC des demandeurs d’asile – CADA ) at GPE , where the family had been living . The applicants were taken that DATE to the administrative detention centre ( ORG rétention administrative – ORG ) of ORG . The detention orders in respect of the first CARDINAL applicants read as follows :

“ Whereas the immediate enforcement of the [ order to leave GPE ] is not possible on account of the organisation of [ their ] departure for [ their ] country of origin .

Whereas [ the applicants ] [ have ] not presented sufficient guarantees that [ they ] will not abscond , not having a valid passport , [ having ] neither a fixed abode nor sufficient resources , not [ having ] complied with the previous removal directions issued to [ them ] and [ having ] formally opposed , when interviewed , [ their ] return to [ their ] country of origin . ”

The first CARDINAL applicants challenged their detention orders and in parallel lodged an urgent application for a stay of execution . They claimed that they had a fixed addressed at the reception centre ( ORG ) , that a friend was prepared to accommodate them and that , in any event , their detention would be incompatible with the best interests of their child . In this connection they indicated that their child , who was too young to be left on his own , was obliged to accompany them in all their administrative formalities and therefore to come into contact with armed police officers in uniform .

On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the urgent application without a hearing , finding as follows :

“ Under the [ domestic statutory ] provisions , the legality of decisions ordering administrative detention in connection with removal measures can be challenged fully through a specific procedure , which itself has the nature of an urgent procedure , separately from the remit of the urgent applications judge ... ; it follows therefrom that the ORG request for that judge to order ... the stay of execution of the detention orders made for the purpose of enforcing the removal directions , a stay which would in fact have an equivalent effect to that of the annulment of the same decision on the merits , is inadmissible . ”

On DATE , ORG dismissed the application lodged by the first CARDINAL applicants for the annulment of the administrative detention order , on the following grounds :

“ It is not in dispute that [ the applicants ] can not present any valid identity or travel document ; although [ they claim ] that [ they ] have a fixed address in an asylum - seekers’ reception centre , it can be seen from the evidence in the file that this centre asked [ them ] to vacate the premises , where [ they have ] unduly remained since DATE ; nor [ have ] the [ applicants ] adduced evidence of lawful income ; lastly , since the notification of the judgment of ORG of DATE dismissing [ their ] application against the order of the prefect of Loiret of CARDINAL DATE , [ the applicants ] [ have ] avoided the said removal measure ; under those circumstances , the choice of the administrative authority to place [ them ] in administrative detention instead of ordering a measure of restricted residence ... is not vitiated by a manifest error of judgment . ”

Responding more specifically to the argument raised by the applicants concerning the child ’s best interests , ORG found it to be inapplicable , as the decisions appealed against pertained only to the GPE personal situation .

The prefect asked the Liberties and Detention Judge of the LOC tribunal de grande instance to extend the detention , after which the first CARDINAL applicants tried to obtain the third applicant ’s voluntary intervention in the proceedings . On DATE that judge authorised the extension of the applicants’ detention for DATE , after finding inadmissible the request for voluntary intervention on behalf of the child , and having dismissed the argument that the conditions of detention were incompatible with the presence of a minor child , on the following grounds :

“ It is not for the judicial authority to interfere in the running of an administrative detention centre ” .

NORP That decision was upheld on DATE by the President of ORG , who found in particular as follows :

“ ... the administrative detention centre of ORG , where the child is held , has been authorised to receive families and contains all the necessary facilities to ensure the comfort of a family with children .

Thus the whole family is together and they have , in an autonomous area and separated from the rest of the detainees , rooms for them alone and for their exclusive use .

In addition , there is a playground on the site , like those to be found in town squares .

Lastly , a doctor and a nurse are available DATE in the LOC administrative detention centre and PERSON and PERSON have not shown that they met with a refusal when they asked to present their child – a request of which the existence has not been established .

The Convention provisions , especially LAW , do not therefore appear to have been breached . ”

On DATE the applicants submitted to the ORG , under LAW , a request for the suspension of the detention orders concerning them . On DATE the ORG decided not to indicate the requested interim measure .

On DATE the applicants were released , after expressing their wish to return to GPE , and after seeking voluntary return assistance for that purpose . However , they did not leave GPE , on account of the third applicant ’s state of health . On DATE the first applicant was granted leave to remain as the parent of a sick child .

In CARDINAL judgments of DATE , ORG annulled the administrative detention orders of CARDINAL DATE in respect of the first CARDINAL applicants . Its judgments contained the same wording for each spouse :

“ CARDINAL . Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Entry and Residence of Aliens and Right of Asylum Code provides , by way of exception to the cases where a foreign national may be placed in detention , the possibility of ordering a measure of restricted residence ( assignation à résidence ) if the alien can present guarantees to allay the risk of non - compliance with his or her obligation to leave GPE . Under provision CARDINAL of part II of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the same LAW , such risk must in particular be regarded as established , save in specific circumstances , in cases where the alien has already evaded the execution of a removal measure . The finding by the administrative authority of facts falling within provision CARDINAL of part II of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , while it is such as to create a presumption of a risk that the alien might fail to comply with his or her obligation to leave GPE , does not dispense that authority , before any decision to place him or her in detention , parents of minor children and who do not have sufficient guarantees of compliance , such aliens being provided for by LAW , and in accordance with the aims of LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC , recourse to placement in detention can only constitute an exceptional measure in cases where the alien does not have a stable place of abode at the time when the prefectoral authority takes the necessary measures to prepare for the removal .

For the purposes of transposition of the above - mentioned Directive , Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Entry and Residence of Aliens and Right of Asylum Code , as inserted by PERSON no . DATE of DATE , provides : ‘ In the cases provided for in LAW , where the alien is the parent of a minor child residing in GPE and has effectively contributed to the raising and education of that child in the conditions prescribed in LAW since the birth of the child or at least for DATE , and where the conditions for a restricted residence measure under LAW of the present Code are not fulfilled , the administrative authority can decide on a measure of curfew with electronic tagging , with the agreement of the alien concerned .

The measure of curfew with electronic tagging is decided by the administrative authority for DATE . The measure may be extended by ORG under the same conditions as the extension of the administrative detention provided for in chapter II of title V of the present book.’

It can be seen from the evidence in the file that on the date of the decision appealed against , Mr [ A.B. ] , accompanied by his wife and DATE son [ A.B. ] , had been accommodated for DATE in the hostel of the asylum - seekers’ reception centre in GPE , and that the child had been going to school . PERSON ] was apprehended on DATE in that hostel , where the family had remained unlawfully , even though they had been requested to leave the LOC by the centre ’s administration , following the rejection of their requests for a review of their asylum situation by a decision of DATE of ORG persons . In deciding on their placement in detention the prefect of PERSON merely stated that PERSON [ A.B. ] did not present sufficient guarantees against the risk of non - compliance , as he did not have a valid passport , had no stable place of abode or sufficient income , and had not complied with the previous directions for his removal . It does not appear from the decision appealed against that the prefect had considered , having regard to the presence of a child , whether a less coercive measure than detention was possible for the necessarily short duration of the removal procedure . In those conditions , his decision was vitiated by an error of law and had for that reason to be declared null and void .

It transpires from the foregoing that , without there being any need to examine the other arguments in the application , Mr [ A.B. ] is justified in submitting that the judge appointed by the President of ORG , in the judgment appealed against , had been wrong to reject his request for the annulment of the decision of CARDINAL DATE placing him in administrative detention . ”


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

The applicants , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and live in GPE / Main . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicants moved from GPE to GPE / Main in GPE . They submitted a registration form dated DATE to the local registration authority , to inform the latter of their new place of residence . The form required information about their religion , and for both applicants they indicated “ Mosaic ” ( “ Mosaisch ” ) in the relevant part of the form .

The applicants remained members of their liberally - oriented NORP community in GPE .

NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the NORP community of GPE / Main welcomed the applicants as new members . A copy of the community ’s statutes was attached to the letter . According to the statutes , all persons of NORP faith whose place of residence or usual abode was in GPE / Main were members of the community , unless they had made a written objection to the community council within DATE from their date of arrival .

NORP By letter of DATE the applicants opposed membership . They further requested restitutio in integrum ( Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand ) , pointing out that they had received the community ’s statutes only after the expiry of the period for filing an objection .

As the community did not accept their objection , the applicants , as a precautionary measure , resigned their membership with effect from DATE . This was accepted by the community .

As a public - law entity ( Körperschaft öffentlichen Rechts ) the NORP community of GPE / Main levies a church tax based on the individual income of their members , which is collected by the ORG tax authorities . For the period from DATE to DATE the GPE / Main tax office levied a church tax on the applicants . They objected to paying the church tax in a separate set of proceedings which is not the subject of the application at issue .

On DATE the applicants brought an action before ORG to obtain a declaration that they had not been members of the community DATE and DATE .

On DATE the GPE / ORG rejected the action as inadmissible , denying that such a judgment would have a legitimate interest .

The applicants appealed and , on DATE , ORG dismissed their appeal . It held that the applicants’ action was admissible , but ill - founded because their membership was based on internal regulations of the religious community which had to be recognised by ORG authorities , in view of the principle of autonomy of religious organisations .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and declared that , in the public sphere , the ORG membership could not have legal effect . It reasoned , in essence , that notwithstanding the autonomy of religious organisations’ religion was “ Mosaic ” could not be taken as a declaration of willingness to become members of the local NORP community .

After the GPE / Main NORP community had lodged a constitutional complaint ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , on DATE ORG , sitting in a chamber of CARDINAL judges , quashed ORG judgment , finding a violation of the community ’s fundamental right under LAW and CARDINAL , read in conjunction with LAW of LAW of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ) . The court held that ORG had not correctly evaluated the scope and the significance of the guarantee of autonomy ( Selbstbestimmungsrecht ) afforded to religious communities by the aforementioned Articles of LAW Regulations governing membership had to be seen as affairs that religious communities are free to determine at their own discretion . The ORG ’s duty to acknowledge the guarantee of autonomy of religious associations for the secular legal sphere found its limits in the negative religious freedom of potential members . The inclusion of members by religious communities had to be acknowledged where this was legitimised by positive declaration , albeit possibly by an implicit declaration . There were various ways to express willingness to be a member of a religious community . This did not necessarily have to be expressed to the religious community itself . From the information submitted by the applicants to the registration office in GPE / Main it could be concluded , from the objective standpoint of the onlooker ( objektivierter GPE ) , that the applicants had expressed their willingness to be members of the NORP community of GPE / Main .

On DATE ORG , to which the case had been remitted , dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law . It pointed out that , on procedural grounds , the judgment of ORG was binding . It nevertheless expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the finding with LAW . It noted in particular that ORG had attached no importance to the fact that the applicants had not been asked for their religious affiliation but for their religion in the registration form at issue . Notwithstanding the NORP community of GPE / Main ’s conception of itself as a uniform community , everyone who lived in the community ’s district and declared his or her religious belief should be free to choose another NORP community . Due to the binding effect of the judgment of ORG , the court considered itself prevented from founding its decision on these aspects .

On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG which is still pending ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Relying on LAW and referring to the ORG ’s case - law they complained in particular that their membership in the NORP community of GPE / Main was not based on their consent .


Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)

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

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

The information provided by the applicant ’s representative and the ORG is limited and conflicting . The elements at the ORG ’s disposal are described below .

The following account of events is based on a series of written submissions to the ORG by the applicant ’s representative .

The applicant , while living in GPE , was a friend of a former boyfriend of PERSON , one of President PERSON ’s daughters . At some point PERSON turned against her former boyfriend ’s friends . Fleeing political persecution , on DATE the applicant moved to GPE . He resided in GPE with his partner , PERSON , and their child .

NORP In DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with crimes related to religious extremism on account of his alleged involvement in the establishment in DATE of a jihadist organisation , issued an arrest warrant and put his name on an international wanted list .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on the basis of the NORP warrant .

On DATE the ORG of GPE authorised the applicant ’s detention pending extradition .

On DATE the Golovinskiy inter - district prosecutor ’s office of GPE ordered the applicant ’s release on the grounds that the NORP authorities had not lodged a formal extradition request and that the crimes he had been charged with did not constitute criminal offences under NORP law . It was also noted that the applicant could not have established the jihadist organisation in DATE as the organisation in question had been banned by ORG in DATE . The applicant was then released .

Following his release , the applicant continued to live in GPE . At some point he applied for refugee status , referring to a risk of illtreatment in GPE .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the GPE FMS ” ) dismissed the allegations of a risk of ill - treatment in GPE as unfounded and rejected the applicant ’s application for refugee status . He challenged that decision in court .

On DATE the ORG of GPE approved the applicant ’s application , quashed ORG rejection and ordered it to grant the applicant refugee status .

The applicant ’s passport remained in the GPE FMS ’s file concerning his application for refugee status .

Given that no appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was lodged within the required time , the judgment entered into force .

On TIME , while the applicant and his family were visiting a friend , PERSON , the applicant ’s child fell ill . The applicant and PERSON decided to take him to hospital and the applicant called a taxi . A silver PERSON arrived . Mr PERSON wanted to accompany the applicant and PERSON , but the Lada ’s driver told him that the car had been ordered for CARDINAL adult passengers only . The applicant , PERSON and the child got into the taxi .

On their way , at TIME , PERSON decided to stop at a pharmacy in the centre of GPE . She took the child out of the taxi and the applicant waited in the car . When PERSON left the pharmacy she saw that the taxi had driven away . A woman told PERSON that she had seen QUANTITY men getting in a parked car , which had then driven off .

PERSON tried calling the applicant but his mobile telephone was turned off . She then alerted Mr T.

The applicant ’s representative was notified of the applicant ’s disappearance shortly after . On DATE , that is , on DATE , he contacted ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and the border control agency , asking them to prevent the applicant ’s involuntary removal from NORP territory . According to the applicant ’s representative , he suspected the involvement of CARDINAL ORG officers , “ Timur ” and “ GPE ” , who had shown an interest in the applicant in DATE . Nevertheless , he did not mention those people in his letters to the ORG and the border control agency .

On DATE the investigation department of ORG informed the applicant ’s father that the applicant had been arrested and placed in custody on DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s representative forwarded a copy of the notification to the ORG .

The criminal case against the applicant was brought to trial before ORG . He was appointed a legal aid lawyer .

At DATE the applicant ’s representative , Mr Vasilyev , travelled to GPE . He discovered that the applicant had been kept incommunicado in a remand prison in GPE . Mr PERSON was repeatedly denied access to the applicant .

Mr PERSON attended CARDINAL hearings at ORG on DATE , and DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the trial judge allowed PERSON PERSON to talk to the applicant . During the conversations the applicant sat in a cage in the courtroom surrounded by guards . The applicant ’s representative summarised the applicant ’s description of the events of DATE , given orally on DATE and DATE , as follows .

At TIME on DATE the applicant had been abducted by CARDINAL ORG officers . They had put a sack over the applicant ’s head during the abduction . They had then taken the applicant to an unidentified house , tied him up and taken the sack off his head . The applicant had recognised the CARDINAL men as “ LOC ” and “ GPE ” , the ORG officers whom he had met previously in DATE . The CARDINAL men had beaten the applicant and kept him inside the house until DATE .

On DATE the CARDINAL ORG officers had taken the applicant to a runway at CARDINAL of GPE ’s airports without passing through any border or passport controls as the applicant ’s passport had remained with ORG . The ORG officers had handed the applicant over to NORP officials near the steps of a GPE - bound airplane .

Once in GPE , the applicant had been placed under arrest by ORG of ORG of GPE on suspicion of crimes related to religious extremism . He had been kept in detention for DATE and had been subjected to torture and other illtreatment by NORP law - enforcement officers with a view to securing a self - incriminating statement . The applicant had been tied head downwards to a bar attached to the wall and had been beaten repeatedly . The officers had broken CARDINAL of the applicant ’s ribs and knocked out CARDINAL of his teeth .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative interviewed Ms I.

PERSON stated that on DATE an ORG officer named “ GPE ” and some police officers had come to their GPE flat to search for the applicant , but had not found him .

In DATE “ GPE ” and another ORG officer , “ Timur ” , had interviewed PERSON about the applicant and his religious views and practices .

Following the applicant ’s abduction , on DATE PERSON had called “ Timur ” on his mobile phone , enquiring about her partner . “ PERSON ” had replied that he was no longer working for “ that office ” ( the ORG ) . PERSON had also tried calling “ GPE ” but had received no response .

On DATE PERSON had flown to GPE with her son and mother . Upon arrival she had been detained at the airport for TIME and then released .

PERSON had been questioned by the investigator in charge of the applicant ’s case at ORG of GPE , PERSON , but had been denied access to the applicant . When she had seen the applicant in the courtroom , he had made signs to her that he had been beaten .

On DATE Mr PERSON interviewed the applicant ’s mother , PERSON .

PERSON . stated that her younger son had been convicted of crimes related to religious extremism in DATE , which had influenced the applicant ’s decision to leave GPE . She had had occasional contact with the applicant during his time in GPE .

On DATE PERSON had arrived in GPE and informed PERSON . of the applicant ’s abduction .

On DATE officers of ORG of GPE had come to PERSON . ’s home and searched it .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother had visited the investigator , ORG , who had said that the applicant had voluntarily returned to GPE on DATE and had gone to the police with a statement of surrender .

NORP Some people had informed PERSON . that her son had been severely beaten while in detention . She had not had access to the applicant , but when she had seen him in the courtroom , he had looked very poorly .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of crimes under LAW ( “ the illegal establishment of public associations or religious organisations ” ) and DATE ( “ the establishment of , management of , participation in religious extremist , separatist , fundamentalist or other proscribed organisations ” ) of GPE ’s Criminal Code and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

The lawyer appointed for the applicant refused to lodge an appeal against the judgment .

On DATE Mr PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG of ORG on the applicant ’s behalf . It appears that later the applicant withdrew the statement of appeal .

The applicant remains imprisoned in GPE .

On DATE the GPE FMS lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The statement accompanying the appeal did not contain any request to restore the time - limit for lodging it .

ORG admitted the appeal on an unspecified date . The reasons for admitting it after the time - limit had run out are unknown .

DATE . On DATE ORG in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) submitted a memorandum on the applicant ’s case to ORG for consideration . It was noted that torture was a widespread method of coercion used by the NORP authorities to obtain selfincriminating statements from those suspected of involvement in “ religious extremism ” . The statement read , in particular :

“ As follows from the document of ORG published by ORG on DATE , after the forced return to GPE , PERSON PERSON was subjected to torture and other kinds of proscribed treatment and punishment for DATE with a view to obtaining a confession to made - up charges DATE he was tied head down to a bar attached to a wall and beaten , as a result of which he had CARDINAL teeth knocked out and CARDINAL ribs broken . ”

On DATE ORG examined the appeal lodged by the GPE ORG against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , quashed the judgment and upheld the GPE FMS ’s decision of DATE owing to the fact that the applicant had not provided “ convincing and irrefutable evidence of the existence of well - founded fears of becoming a victim of persecution in GPE ” . The reasons for examining a belated appeal on the merits were not given in the text of the judgment .

In the course of the proceedings before ORG , the Government sent CARDINAL sets of correspondence , the contents of which are described below .

By a letter of DATE in reply to the ORG ’s request for information of DATE , made at the same time as the indication of the interim measures ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Government informed the ORG that “ the relevant ORG bodies have been informed about the disappearance of the applicant and the indication by ORG interim measures under LAW ” .

They further noted that the applicant had not been “ apprehended by the officers of any NORP law - enforcement bodies on DATE in GPE ” and that “ his current whereabouts [ are ] unknown ” .

The Government also stated that on DATE the GPE district department of the interior ( “ the GPE police ” ) had received a complaint about the applicant ’s kidnapping from Mr T. and that on DATE a case file with the preliminary inquiry conducted on the basis of that complaint had been forwarded to the GPE district investigative unit of the GPE investigative department of ORG ( “ the investigative authority ” ) “ for further enquiry and the possible initiation of a criminal case ” .

Lastly , they noted that the applicant ’s representative ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been forwarded to the investigative authority for consideration .

No documents were enclosed with the letter of DATE .

On DATE the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application , the contents of which can be summarised as follows .

On DATE the investigative authority opened an investigation into the applicant ’s kidnapping as criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( “ aggravated kidnapping ” ) .

In the course of the investigation ORG pictures from cameras located in the vicinity of the scene of the incident were examined . They showed that on DATE at TIME the applicant had been kidnapped by unidentified people and taken away by car .

The Government claimed that the ORG ’s demand to submit lists of passengers checked in on GPE - bound flights DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could not be complied with as the lists in question contained personal data CARDINAL parties and could not be submitted to the ORG without their prior consent .

The Government further submitted that there was no information about the arrest of the applicant on DATE by lawenforcement agencies or his detention in remand prisons in GPE or LOC , and that no information regarding the applicant crossing the State border had been received at that time .

The notification by the NORP authorities to the applicant ’s father of DATE concerning the applicant ’s arrest and detention in GPE had been added to the criminal investigation file .

The Government concluded that there was no evidence to prove any direct or indirect involvement of the NORP authorities in the applicant ’s alleged kidnapping and transfer to GPE .

The NORP authorities had not been made aware and could not have known of any risk that the applicant might be kidnapped .

The Government were not in a position to provide information on the criminal proceedings against the applicant in GPE as those proceedings fell outside their jurisdiction . However , they had sent a request for mutual legal assistance to the NORP authorities in order to establish the applicant ’s whereabouts .

In conclusion , the ORG submitted that there had not been any administrative practice of the involuntary removal of persons in respect of whom Rule DATE had been applied to their countries of nationality . Inquiries and investigations were opened into instances of the disappearance of such people . ORG oversaw the compliance with NORP law of any decisions taken in the course of such inquiries and investigations . A large group of ORG agencies had held a co - ordination meeting on DATE on the further enforcement of measures to ensure the security of asylum seekers .

No documents were enclosed with the ORG ’s observations of DATE .

DATE . On DATE the Government , in reply to the applicant ’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application , submitted that they reaffirmed the position stated in their observations of DATE and commented on the applicant ’s just satisfaction claims .

No documents were enclosed with the ORG ’s correspondence of CARDINAL DATE .

Following the ORG ’s additional question to the Government regarding the respondent ORG ’s compliance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Government submitted a letter which read as follows :

“ With reference to your letter of DATE in respect of the above application , please find enclosed copies of the criminal investigation documents disclosed by the investigative authorities after a repeated request .

The Government kindly ask the ORG to join the documents to the case - file . ”

No answer to the ORG ’s question under LAW was given .

CARDINAL pages of various documents issued by the NORP and NORP authorities were enclosed with the Government ’s cover letter .

The contents of the documents issued by the NORP authorities and which were enclosed with the ORG ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE can be summarised as follows .

On DATE Mr T. reported the applicant ’s kidnapping to the GPE police and made a statement . Mr T. stated , in particular , that a woman on the street near the pharmacy had seen QUANTITY men getting into the parked silver Lada Priora .

On DATE PERSON made a statement to the GPE police that at TIME on DATE she , her partner and child had taken a taxi , a silver PERSON . She had got out of the car to go into a pharmacy , but by the time she had come out the taxi had disappeared .

DATE . On DATE the GPE police reported to the investigative authority that they had failed to identify the applicant ’s whereabouts and that there had been no “ positive information ” concerning any aeroplane or railway tickets issued in the applicant ’s name or about the applicant being placed in remand prisons . Furthermore , it was noted that the GPE department of the ORG and the data centre of ORG of the ORG had not sent any reply to the police ’s enquiries . The GPE police also reported that the whereabouts of PERSON were unknown and that it had been impossible to identify the taxi driver who had taken the applicant to the scene of the kidnapping .

On DATE the investigative authority decided to open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s kidnapping . The decision described the events as follows :

“ On DATE at TIME persons who have not been identified by the investigation , acting jointly and by common accord , approached a car which has not been identified by the investigation parked near house no . CARDINAL at ORG in GPE , in which Mr PERSON was travelling , and , having got in the said car against the will of the victim , kidnapped Mr PERSON , fleeing the scene of the crime in the said car to an unknown destination . ”

On DATE the investigative authority requested the transport police to inform them whether any aeroplane or railway tickets had been issued in the applicant ’s name DATE and DATE .

On DATE the investigative authority granted the applicant victim status in case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE an investigator with the investigative authority decided to suspend the investigation of case no . DATE . The decision stated that the applicant ’s whereabouts had been established as he had been detained in a remand prison in GPE , the scene of the incident had been inspected , CARDINAL witnesses had been questioned , various requests had been sent to the NORP authorities and a request for mutual legal assistance had been sent to GPE , but no reply had been received .

On DATE the investigator ’s superior at the investigative authority overruled the decision of DATE to suspend the case and returned it to the investigator on the grounds that the suspension decision had been taken prematurely . It was noted that the following measures had to be taken to ensure a proper investigation : a response to the request for mutual legal assistance from the NORP authorities had still to be received , as had replies to “ previously sent requests ” . “ Other requisite investigative and procedural measures ” also still had to be performed .

On DATE an investigator at the investigative authority decided to resume case no . CARDINAL following the order from his superior . It is clear from the text of the decision that DATE and DATE the investigation had been suspended and resumed CARDINAL times on the basis of decisions by a more senior officer at the investigative authority or by a prosecutor .

The materials provided by the ORG included the following documents :

- an undated sheet of paper with no letterhead entitled “ ORG for an Individual ” containing the applicant ’s personal information and information on a criminal case pending against him in GPE , from which it transpires that the applicant was put on a NORP federal wanted list . The sheet contains a handwritten note “ Database ‘ Region’ of ORG of the Interior ( has not been arrested ) ” .

- an undated document entitled “ Request for legal assistance ” addressed to “ the competent ORG bodies of GPE ” and signed by an investigator at the investigative authority , including a list of questions to ask the applicant , PERSON and the officers in charge of the applicant ’s arrest . The questions concerned , in particular , the circumstances of the applicant ’s arrival in GPE , including how he crossed the border and the reasons for his detention in GPE .

The contents of the documents issued by the NORP authorities which were enclosed with the Government ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE can be summarised as follows .

According to an arrest record drawn up in NORP by the NORP police the applicant was placed under arrest at TIME on DATE as a suspect in a crime under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . The place of arrest was not indicated in the record . The grounds for the arrest were stated as “ other information leading to a suspicion that a person has committed a crime , and if the person has attempted to flee or has no abode or his or her identity has not been established ” . The purpose of the arrest was stated as “ there are enough grounds to suspect the person of having committed a crime ” . A note observed that “ the arrested person has been placed in a temporary detention unit of ORG of GPE ” .

According to a document in NORP entitled “ Record of providing an arrested person with the right to make a telephone call ” of DATE , the applicant made use of that right to call his mother between CARDINAL and TIME on DATE to inform her of his arrest .

The record of the search of the applicant in NORP showed that MONEY and CARDINAL metallic ring were seized from the applicant when he was searched after being arrested .

On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE informed the applicant ’s father that his son , who had been wanted and “ declared guilty in absentia ” , had been arrested on DATE , placed in custody and had been participating in investigative measures .

According to a NORP translation of a document in NORP of DATE an investigator , PERSON , at ORG of GPE asked ORG to provide information on “ the facts of crossing the State border of GPE ” by the applicant DATE and DATE . A NORP translation of the reply in NORP by ORG of CARDINAL DATE stated that there was no information in the ORG database on the applicant crossing the NORP border DATE and DATE . It was noted that the database was compiled on the basis of written statements by those crossing borders and could thus contain errors owing to differences in people ’s handwriting .

According to the record of an interview held on DATE PERSON questioned the applicant as a victim in an unspecified criminal case . The interview was in NORP . In the course of the interview the applicant stated that he had not been arrested by the NORP authorities and that he had voluntarily left GPE to go to GPE to visit his ailing mother . He stated that he had had no documents on him . Once in GPE , the applicant had taken a taxi to his mother ’s , but the taxi had broken down and stopped . After getting out of the car , the applicant had been asked by police officers who had happened to be passing for an identification document . Since he had had no such document , he had been taken to a police station for identification and then arrested . The applicant ’s answer to a question about his whereabouts CARDINAL was as follows :

“ On DATE I was at home , in the evening I took the child to hospital , then at TIME I returned and stayed at home . Then on DATE I was at home and at TIME went to the railway station , and at TIME left for GPE by bus . I was on the road for TIME or a little longer , and on DATE I arrived at the border between GPE and GPE , then , using roundabout ways , I crossed the border and at TIME was on NORP territory , where I was arrested by officers of law - enforcement agencies . ”

On DATE the investigator PERSON questioned PERSON as a witness . The interview was in NORP . PERSON stated that the applicant had voluntarily and secretly left for GPE by bus on DATE and that she had flown to GPE on DATE .

On DATE PERSON questioned CARDINAL of the police officers who had arrested the applicant , PERSON . , as a witness . The interview was in NORP . The answer to the question about the circumstances of the applicant ’s arrest reads as follows :

“ On DATE at TIME in the NORP district of GPE Mr PERSON was stopped with a view to checking his identity documents , however , given that he had no documents on him , the latter was taken to the NORP district department of the interior of GPE , where it was established that PERSON was wanted , accordingly , PERSON was taken to the initiator of the search for him in the temporary detention facility of ORG of GPE , where the requisite documents were filled in . ”

On an unspecified date PERSON drew up a report on the actions performed under the request for mutual legal assistance . According to the report , the investigator had questioned PERSON , PERSON . and the applicant , had received copies of documents pertaining to the applicant ’s arrest , requested information concerning the border crossing and had identified CARDINAL men allegedly connected with the applicant who as of DATE had been fighting on the side of ORG in GPE .

The Government also submitted CARDINAL documents in NORP of DATE a copy of the first page of PERSON passport , and an extract from LAW of GPE with the text of LAW in LANGUAGE . The LAW reads as follows : “ the establishment , management , or participation in religious extremist , separatist , fundamentalist or other proscribed organisations shall be punishable by DATE of imprisonment ” .

The ORG observes that both parties to the present case have submitted information concerning its factual circumstances that is very fragmented .

The applicant ’s representative summarised the applicant ’s description of the events of DATE , given orally to the representative on DATE and DATE in the courtroom in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , as follows .

At TIME on DATE the applicant had been abducted by “ PERSON ” and “ GPE ” , ORG officers whom he had previously met in DATE . The QUANTITY men had put a sack over the applicant ’s head during the abduction . They had then taken him to an unidentified house , tied him up and taken the sack off his head . The ORG officers had beaten the applicant and kept him inside the house until DATE .

On DATE “ Timur ” and “ GPE ” had taken the applicant to a runway at CARDINAL of GPE ’s airports without passing through any border or passport controls as the applicant ’s passport had remained with ORG . The ORG officers had handed the applicant over to NORP officials near the steps of a GPE - bound airplane .

Once in GPE , the applicant had been placed under arrest by ORG of ORG of GPE and had been subjected to torture and other ill - treatment by lawenforcement officers for DATE with a view to securing a selfincriminating statement . The applicant had been tied to a bar attached to the wall head downward and had been beaten repeatedly . The NORP officers had broken CARDINAL of the applicant ’s ribs and knocked out CARDINAL of his teeth .

The Government submitted that according to ORG pictures the applicant had been kidnapped at TIME on DATE by unidentified people and had been taken away by car to an unidentified destination . There had been no proof of the direct or indirect involvement of the NORP authorities in the applicant ’s alleged abduction and forced transfer to GPE .

From the limited material provided by the parties the ORG can discern the following as the few facts which appear to be not in dispute . Both parties have agreed that the applicant was abducted in GPE at TIME on DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . It follows by implication from the ORG ’s assertion that the applicant was kidnapped by unidentified people ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that they have acknowledged that the applicant was restricted in exercising his free will from that moment on . It is thus reasonable to assume that the Government have not contested the allegation that the applicant was involuntarily removed from the NORP territory . Furthermore , there is no dispute about the fact that the applicant was arrested and placed in custody in GPE by the NORP authorities , although there appears to be a certain amount of confusion as to the date of his arrest ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The Government also raised no objection to the applicant ’s representative ’s submission that the applicant stood trial at ORG and was convicted of crimes related to religious extremism ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Nevertheless , the events from TIME on DATE , in particular the factual circumstances of how the applicant travelled from GPE to GPE , have not been elucidated .

The ORG notes in passing that the Government enclosed a record of the applicant ’s interview by the NORP authorities , without providing any accompanying comment or explanation . According to that document , the applicant had travelled from GPE to GPE by bus without a passport ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Were the Government to be understood to be tacitly relying on the explanation appearing in that document , the ORG would be reluctant to accept is as satisfactory given that the interview in question was not attended by sufficient procedural safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness .

The ORG reiterates that it has established a number of general principles concerning situations in which , owing to a conflicting account of events by the parties , it has confronted difficulties when establishing the facts ( for a summary of those principles see PERSON v. “ the former GPE ” [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

NORP In particular , the ORG reaffirms its constant position that the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation where the events giving rise to a complaint under LAW lie within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , as in the case of persons under their control in custody ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) , or where , although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities , it is possible to establish in the context of a disappearance complaint under LAW that he or she was officially summoned by the authorities , entered a place under their control and has not been seen since ( see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL–VIII ) .

Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG observes that , owing to the scarcity of the information before it , it is not in a position to establish with certainty the exact circumstances of the applicant ’s travel from GPE to GPE , including the date of arrival to destination and the means of transportation employed . Given that CARDINAL documents issued by the NORP authorities that were submitted by the Government suggest that he reached GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , the ORG is ready to accept , in the absence of any other evidence , that date as the date of arrival . As to the means of transportation , the applicant ’s representative submitted that the applicant was put on an aeroplane in CARDINAL of the GPE airports . The Government remained silent on the matter . The NORP authorities implied that the applicant took a bus from GPE to GPE .

The ORG considers that , owing to the scarcity of the information available , it can not establish the precise circumstances surrounding the applicant ’s travel from GPE to GPE . Nevertheless , it regards the following CARDINAL elements as salient for the analysis of the present case : ( a ) that the applicant was without his passport on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and ( b ) that , in order to arrive to GPE , he must have crossed the NORP State borders in CARDINAL manner or another .

The ORG notes in this connection that it has previously concluded that a forcible transfer of an individual to a ORG that was not a party to the LAW by aircraft from GPE or the surrounding region could not happen without the knowledge and either passive or active involvement of the NORP authorities ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . Any airport serving international flights is subject to heightened security measures , remaining under the permanent control of the respondent ORG ’s authorities and notably , the State border service ( ibid . , also , see Savriddin PERSON v. GPE , no . ORG , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) . As to the possibility of transport by bus , it would appear implausible that an individual whose name appeared on the wanted lists ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) could travel QUANTITY through GPE and GPE by bus and cross the GPE - GPE and GPE - Uzbekistan State borders unimpededly despite having no passport on him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG considers , accordingly , that a strong presumption of the NORP authorities’ involvement in the applicant ’s relocation to GPE has arisen . The Government , however , have failed to rebut this presumption . In particular , they did not disclose the passenger logs for the GPE flights which had departed from the GPE airports after DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Nor did the Government submit any explanation as to how the applicant could cross the NORP border without a passport .

In view of the above , the ORG considers that , whereas the applicant made out a prima facie case that he had been abducted and transferred to GPE with the direct or indirect involvement of the NORP authorities , the Government failed persuasively to refute his allegations and to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to how the applicant arrived in GPE .

The ORG accordingly finds it established that the NORP authorities bear responsibility , as a result of direct or indirect involvement , for the applicant ’s forcible transfer from GPE to GPE . On the basis of this finding , the ORG will proceed to examine the applicant ’s complaints under LAW .


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

Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Sergiy Goncharenko;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant , PERSON ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant obtained a certificate ( cертифікат на право на земельну частку ( пай ) ) attesting his entitlement to a nominal CARDINAL.CARDINAL-ha share of the land belonging to the ORG collective farm . At the same time , according to him , he was allocated a specific plot measuring CARDINAL ha , which , he had farmed and paid land tax on since that time . It appears that the allocated land consisted of CARDINAL different parcels , CARDINAL of them measuring CARDINAL ha .

In DATE ORG merged with PERSON . , a neighbouring collective farming company , which was designated as its successor . Following the merger , PERSON . did not register itself as the new owner of the land formerly allocated to V.G. Subsequently the CARDINAL farms separated again .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ordered the expropriation of CARDINAL ha of Kh . ’s land and its transfer to ORG closed joint stock company for the exploitation of kaolin deposits . By the same decision , ORG was obliged , in particular , to compensate the local council for the damage suffered by the agricultural producers in connection with the expropriation of the land .

On DATE the FAC district land authority drew up a draft land - ownership certificate designating the boundaries of the plot to be allocated to U.C.C. This plot was de facto located on the land which had been registered as belonging to V.G .. The draft certificate mentioned , in particular , that ORG had to obtain and register a relevant ORG land - use certificate .

According to the applicant , until DATE U.C.C. took no action to register its land - use rights and the plot designated for expropriation by ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE remained in the hands of the members of the ORG collective farm . The CARDINAL.CARDINAL-ha parcel of the land farmed by the applicant was affected by the ORG ’s decision .

Meanwhile , on DATE the LOC administration approved a draft certificate determining the boundaries of the plots of land to be designated to individual farmers from the lands allocated to ORG and ordered production of the respective individual land - ownership certificates .

On the basis of this decision , on DATE the applicant was issued with the land - ownership certificate for the aforementioned CARDINAL.CARDINAL-ha plot . No information concerning registration of ownership in respect of any other land parcels farmed by the applicant has been provided to the ORG .

On DATE the FAC district prosecutor addressed the LOC administration objecting to its decision of CARDINAL DATE . The prosecutor maintained , in particular , that CARDINAL ha of land designated for exploitation of kaolin deposits had been allocated to individual farmers in breach of ORG ’s rights .

On DATE the LOC administration accepted the prosecutor ’s objection and annulled its decision of DATE in so far as it related to the CARDINAL ha of land claimed by U.C.C.

On DATE U.C.C. lodged a civil action claiming the CARDINAL.CARDINAL-ha plot of land allocated to the applicant and seeking annulment of the land - ownership certificate issued to him on DATE . It noted , in particular , that the FAC district administration had already annulled its own decision of DATE , which had served as the basis for the issuance of the land - ownership certificate to the applicant . The issuance had therefore been devoid of legal basis .

On DATE ORG allowed the aforementioned claim . It noted that the disputed plot had been allocated to the applicant mistakenly on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , without due regard to the fact that in DATE this very plot had already been expropriated and transferred to U.C.C.

Following this decision , GPE blocked the road leading to the plot disputed by the ORG and it became impossible for the applicant to access it or use it for farming .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment .

The applicant appealed in cassation before ORG of GPE . He noted , in particular , that he had obtained the disputed land lawfully and in good faith . He could therefore not be deprived of it unless fair compensation was paid .

NORP In DATE the applicant added to his cassation appeal , informing ORG that on CARDINAL DATE ORG had annulled the decision of DATE and revalidated the decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the basis of which he had obtained his land - ownership certificate ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation .

On an unspecified date several individuals , excluding the applicant , apparently the land owners whose land was also being claimed by ORG , instituted administrative proceedings against the LOC administration . They sought , in particular , to annul its decision of DATE and to declare lawful the decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the basis of which their land - use certificates had been issued .

On DATE ORG allowed their claim . It noted , in particular , that ORG had ordered the expropriation of Kh . ’s land , while the land , whose boundaries had been in dispute , had belonged to ORG , which had been a separate legal entity on the date of the decision at issue .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the above decision and remitted the case for retrial .

After several rounds of proceedings , on DATE ORG found that the decision of DATE had been unlawful in so far as it had related to the plots of land of the individuals who had instituted the proceedings . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the judgment of DATE was upheld by ORG and ORG of GPE respectively .


CASE OF KRIVOROTOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


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

Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

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

In DATE PERSON . , the ORG predecessor , brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against PERSON , seeking his eviction from a flat and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings .

In DATE , following the death of PERSON , the applicants , as his heirs , took over the proceedings as plaintiffs , while PERSON also died in the course of proceedings and PERSON . replaced him as defendant .

During the proceedings , PERSON . brought a counterclaim against the applicants , seeking either a specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue or compensation for investments in the flat he had made in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . The applicants also , in addition to PERSON . ’s civil action , requested ORG to order PERSON . to remove everything he had installed in the flat .

At the closing hearing before ORG on DATE the applicants reiterated all their arguments and requested reimbursement of the costs of proceedings . At the same hearing , the applicants submitted a written itemised claim for costs in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . At the same time , the defendant ’s representative reiterated his arguments and requested reimbursement of the costs in the amount which he promised to specify later .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicants’ action in part , ordering the eviction of PERSON . from the flat , whereas it dismissed the remainder of their civil action , as well as PERSON . ’s counterclaim for compensation of the investments in the flat . As regards the costs of the proceedings , ORG noted :

“ With regard to the costs of the proceedings , each party shall bear their own costs , as provided under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , since the plaintiff succeeded with part of [ their ] action while [ they ] were dismissed as regards the remainder , and the counterclaim was fully dismissed . ”

On DATE , in a supplementary judgment , ORG dismissed PERSON . ’s civil action for a specially protected tenancy .

Meanwhile , the parties challenged the first - instance judgment of ORG of DATE before ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) . The applicants argued that the first - instance court had incorrectly assessed the situation concerning their right to reimbursement of the costs of proceedings .

On DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) dismissed the appeals and upheld the first - instance judgment . As regards the applicants’ arguments concerning the costs of proceedings , ORG noted :

“ ... it is to be noted that [ the applicants ] correctly consider that they should be reimbursed the costs of the proceedings , since the part of their claim by which they sought the eviction [ of PERSON . ] from the flat was successful . However , it is to be noted that the case file shows that they failed to comply with the requirement under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , which provides that a party must set out his or her request for reimbursement of costs at the latest at the end of the closing hearing which precedes the decision on costs . At the hearing held on DATE , by which the proceedings terminated , [ the applicants’ ] representative sought reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings based on an itemised claim which he was supposed to submit . However , there is no such itemised claim in the case file , and the reimbursement of costs was not sought earlier , while certain procedural actions were being taken . This is the reason why the costs of the proceedings could not be reimbursed to [ the applicants ] . ”

On DATE the applicants challenged the judgment of ORG by lodging a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . They pointed out that ORG had manifestly incorrectly assessed their request for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings , overlooking the fact that they had indeed submitted in writing an itemised claim for costs , and had therefore arbitrarily dismissed their complaints in that respect .

On DATE ORG declared the applicants’ constitutional complaint inadmissible , on the grounds that the contested judgment had not concerned the merits of their civil rights or obligations , and as such was not susceptible to constitutional review . This decision was served on the applicants on DATE .


ÖZEL FEZA EĞİTİM ÖĞRETİM YURT VE KANTİN İŞLETMECİLİĞİ TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ v. TURKEY

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

NORP The applicant , ORG ve ORG PERSON , is a joint stock company registered in GPE that operated a private tutoring centre ( dershane ) in GPE for students preparing for secondary school and university entrance examinations at the time of the events giving rise to the present application . The applicant company was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

Law no . PERSON on ORG was enacted on DATE to govern the authorisation , operation , management and supervision of private education institutions . According to former section CARDINAL ( b ) of PERSON no . PERSON , the term “ institution ” included , for the purposes of that PERSON , private institutions engaging in pre - school , elementary and secondary school education , schools for special education and various training courses , distance learning institutions , private tutoring centres , driving schools , inservice training centres , student study centres , special education and rehabilitation centres , and other similar private education institutions .

According to former section CARDINAL ( f ) of PERSON no . PERSON , a “ private tutoring centre ” was defined as a private education institution that prepared students for , inter alia , examinations held for admittance to secondary education or higher education ( hereinafter referred to as “ entrance examinations ” ) .

On DATE Law no . CARDINAL was enacted to amend various laws , including PERSON no . PERSON . Amongst other changes , PERSON no . CARDINAL removed “ private tutoring centres ” from the list of private education institutions that were authorised to operate within the scope of PERSON no . PERSON , and made certain arrangements for the transformation of private tutoring centres in operation to other education institutions . It also amended the definition of “ various training courses ” mentioned in section QUANTITY ( b ) of PERSON no . PERSON to specify that such training courses could not engage in preparing students for entrance examinations , and further added that “ student study centres ” referred to in the same paragraph could only offer services to students who were aged twelve or below . According to the preparatory works to PERSON no . CARDINAL , such amendments were considered necessary mainly to tackle the dichotomy and inequality of opportunity caused by private tutoring centres within the education system , which had over DATE begun to be perceived as an alternative to compulsory education institutions .

On DATE , following an action brought by a group of Members of ORG , ORG decided to annul those provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL that concerned private tutoring centres , as well as the amendments made to the definitions of “ various training centres ” and “ student study centres ” . The annulment became effective on DATE , the date of publication of ORG decision . ORG stressed in its decision that private tutoring centres had been set up to prepare students for entrance examinations , and thus served a specific need which was not always met by regular schools . Instead of taking more targeted measures to deal with the problems posed by those tutoring centres , however , the legislator had opted for their complete abolition , which was not a proportionate response in the circumstances , considering in particular that no alternatives were on offer to meet the specific needs of students preparing for entrance examinations . ORG noted in this connection the amendment of the definitions of “ various training courses ” and “ student study centres ” to prevent them from replacing private tutoring centres .

On DATE the Regulation on Private Education Institutions was amended . The amendments concerned , inter alia , details regarding the “ transformation programme ” that had to be followed by private tutoring centres and the various education institutions that they could transfer into .

On DATE ORG issued a circular ( no . CARDINAL ) regarding , inter alia , the situation of private tutoring centres . The circular stated that following the ORG decision , private tutoring centres currently in operation had to transform themselves into other private education institutions in order to be able to continue to operate . According to CARDINAL of this circular , any private tutoring centres which had not applied for the “ transformation programme ” by DATE would have their operating licences revoked .

Following an action brought by an education workers’ trade union , on DATE ORG ordered a stay of execution of circular no . DATE . ORG stated that by virtue of LAW decisions delivered by ORG did not have retroactive effect , which meant that while the relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL abolishing private tutoring centres had been annulled , the former provisions of PERSON no . PERSON governing those centres had not been reinstated . This , ORG explained , created a gap in the law in respect of the legal status of private tutoring centres which were currently in operation ; this gap had to be filled by the legislator . In the absence of such action by the legislative body , any measures taken by the administration to close down private tutoring centres or limit their activities would be ultra vires . For this reason , ORG found that circular no . DATE issued by ORG had been ultra vires and had contravened the ORG decision by virtue of its provisions providing for the closure of private tutoring centres . CARDINAL of the members of ORG , including the president , delivered a dissenting opinion stating that circular no . DATE was lawful and in compliance with the ORG decision . It appears that ORG has not yet delivered a decision on the merits of this case .

On DATE ORG issued another circular ( no . CARDINAL ) on the subject . According to section CARDINAL of this circular , no administrative action would be taken by governors’ offices against private tutoring centres which were operating lawfully at the time of the enactment of PERSON no . CARDINAL . However , legal action would be taken against those private tutoring centres which continued to operate without transforming themselves into one of the other private education institutions defined in PERSON no . PERSON .

On DATE ORG revoked the licence of the applicant company to operate a private tutoring centre , on the ground that it had continued to operate without being transformed into one of the other private education institutions listed in PERSON no . PERSON , contrary to circular no . CARDINAL . As a result of this decision , on DATE the applicant company was banned from operating a private education institution for DATE .

Prior to its amendment by PERSON no . CARDINAL ( see below paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , section CARDINAL of Law no . PERSON provided as follows :

“ The definitions

Section CARDINAL- The [ terms ] mentioned in this PERSON [ are defined as follows ] ...

( b ) ORG : private institutions engaging in pre - school , elementary and secondary school education , schools for special education and various training courses , institutions of distance learning , private tutoring centres , driving schools , inservice training centres , student study centres , special education and rehabilitation centres , and other similar private education institutions ...

( f ) Private tutoring centre : private education institutions that prepare students for examinations held for admittance to secondary education or higher education , to train [ students ] in their desired subjects and to enhance their level of knowledge .

( g ) Various training courses : private education institutions that operate for the purpose of enhancing ORG knowledge , skills , linguistic [ skills ] , abilities and experiences in social , artistic , sportive , cultural and vocational spheres , [ and ] to [ enable them to ] make use of their free time according to their wishes ...

( j ) Student study centre : private education institutions established to assist students to study their lessons [ and ] to complete their assignments and projects ; [ and ] to conduct social , artistic , sporting and cultural activities in accordance with [ the GPE ] interests , wishes and abilities ... ”

Among other changes , PERSON no . CARDINAL removed “ private tutoring centres ” from the list of institutions defined in LAW b ) of PERSON no . PERSON and abolished LAW f ) accordingly . It also amended section CARDINAL ( g ) and ( j ) as follows :

“ ( g ) Various training courses : private education institutions that operate for the purpose of enhancing ORG knowledge , skills , linguistic [ skills ] , abilities and experiences in social , artistic , sporting , cultural and vocational spheres , [ and ] to [ enable them to ] make use of their free time according to their wishes , on the condition that they do not engage in preparing students for examinations for entrance to secondary education and higher education ...

( j ) Student study centre : private education institutions established to assist students of DATE and below to study their lessons [ and ] to complete their assignments and projects ; [ and ] to conduct social , artistic , sporting and cultural activities in accordance with [ the GPE ] interests , wishes and abilities . ”

Law no . CARDINAL also added a provisional section CARDINAL to Law no . PERSON . According to paragraph CARDINAL of this provisional section , private tutoring centres which had not transformed themselves into another private education institution could only operate until DATE .

The decision of ORG of DATE has been outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above .

The relevant information regarding the circular no . DATE issued by ORG on DATE and the decision of ORG dated DATE ordering the stay of execution of that circular may be found in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above .

The relevant information regarding circular no . CARDINAL issued by ORG on DATE may be found in paragraph CARDINAL above .

According to information obtained proprio motu by the ORG , on an unspecified date an action was brought by an education workers’ trade union seeking the annulment and stay of execution of circular no . MONEY . On DATE ORG dismissed the request for a stay of execution . It held that the repeal of the relevant provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL by ORG had created a legal lacuna concerning the legal status of private tutoring centres . The circular at issue had sought to fill that lacuna by providing for the operation of such private tutoring centres after transformation into other private education institutions , which was also in conformity with the ORG decision in this respect . CARDINAL members of ORG delivered a dissenting opinion against the decision of the majority , following the reasoning of the previous ORG decision concerning circular no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It appears that ORG has not yet delivered a decision on the merits of this case .

According to LAW , all acts and decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ( Administrative Procedure Act ) provides that anyone whose personal rights have been violated as a result of an allegedly unlawful administrative act or decision can bring an action for annulment of that act or decision .

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice regarding the right of individual application to ORG , as well as a review of the mechanism for individual application , may be found in ORG v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


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

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

The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .