Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC , GPE .

The facts of the case are connected to GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE , and Abuyeva and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE . These CARDINAL applications were lodged by residents of ORG , GPE , who alleged that their relatives had been killed or wounded , and that they had suffered injuries and lost their property during the attack on the village from DATE . In the ORG case , cited above , the applicant and her relatives were trying to flee the fighting on DATE when an aviation bomb exploded near their minivan , wounding the applicant and killing CARDINAL of her relatives . In the GPE and Others case , cited above , the applicants described how they had been trapped in the village during intense shelling and had tried to leave through what they had perceived to be a safe exit route . The ORG has established a number of facts relevant to the present case , which can be summarised as follows .

Ever since the start of operations by the NORP military and security forces in GPE in DATE , the village of ORG , situated in ORG , had been considered a “ safe zone ” . By DATE CARDINAL persons were living there , including local residents and internally displaced persons from elsewhere in GPE . In the period leading up to DATE the residents of ORG were not informed by the ORG authorities about the possible advance of illegal fighters into the village , even though such information was available to the military commanders . On DATE the village was captured by a large group of NORP fighters escaping from PERSON . The NORP military forces carried out an assault , using indiscriminate weapons such as heavy , free - falling aviation bombs , artillery , missiles and other weaponry . Although the operation was not spontaneous and involved the use of indiscriminate and highly lethal weaponry , the residents of the village were provided neither with sufficient time to prepare to leave nor with safe exit routes to escape the fighting . The CARDINAL exits from the village were controlled by the military by means of roadblocks . The residents were allowed to leave through the roadblock on the road leading towards the district centre of ORG , but the other one , on the road leading towards GPE , remained closed during most of the fighting . The shelling of ORG continued until DATE inclusive ( see GPE and Others , cited above , § § DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The applicant and her family had been living in the village of FAC , situated QUANTITY from LOC . In DATE the applicant turned DATE . She had lived with her mother , father , CARDINAL elder brothers and a younger sister . She could remember the events of DATE when the hostilities erupted . On DATE a large group of insurgent fighters entered ORG , walking into houses and asking for clothes and food . On DATE airstrikes started . The applicant ’s family went into hiding in a cellar .

On DATE the applicant ’s family decided to travel to ORG , which the applicant ’s father described as a “ peace zone ” . The applicant ’s father drove his black GPE car ; her mother and brother PERSON sat in front , while the applicant , her sister GPE and brother PERSON , as well as CARDINAL cousins , PERSON and PERSON , were in the back seat . On DATE they arrived in ORG and stopped in the centre of the village .

According to the applicant , they did not know anyone in the village and an unknown man invited them to stay at his house , as did many other villagers . The family stayed with this man for TIME and everything was calm . On TIME CARDINAL DATE airstrikes started , and there were a lot of explosions . The applicant ’s family went into the cellar under their host ’s house . Many other people also arrived , including relatives and acquaintances from ORG . They stayed in the cellar throughout DATE , while the shelling of the village continued .

Later in the afternoon the applicant ’s father said that it was too dangerous to stay in ORG and that they would drive to ORG . The applicant ’s father , mother , CARDINAL brothers and CARDINAL cousins , as well as the applicant herself , got into the car . The applicant remembered seeing a lot of people on cars , tractors and on foot trying to get out of ORG . There were explosions .

At some point the applicant lost her conscious awareness of what was happening and found herself lying in the road . Their car was burning . She could see her sister GPE , brother PERSON and cousin PERSON . They were all alive but wounded and burned . The applicant could not see her parents . An old man brought the applicant into the courtyard of a house . Sometime later the applicant , her sister , brother and cousin were put on a bus . The applicant lost consciousness and woke to find herself in hospital in ORG . Her legs were covered with plaster , and her face and hands were burned . She also saw her sister GPE in the same room .

On DATE the applicant and her sister were brought by ambulance to GPE , Ingushetia . TIME the applicant did not see her sister and she did not know at that time where her family was .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the Nazran hospital , with her legs still in plaster . She was diagnosed with fractures of the left hip and right shin , and thermal burns . The circumstances of the wounding were indicated as “ shelling , direct hit on the car in which the family was travelling ” . The applicant went to live with her grandmother in ORG . There she learnt that her whole family had died . As a result of the air - strike , the following relatives of the applicant were killed :

- Mr PERSON , born in DATE , the applicant ’s father ;

- PERSON , born in DATE , her mother ;

- Mr PERSON , born in DATE , her brother ; and

- Mr GPE , born in DATE , her sister .

The applicant ’s cousin PERSON was also killed .

In DATE and DATE ORG civil registration office recorded the deaths of the applicant ’s mother , father and CARDINAL siblings which had occurred in GPE - Yurt on DATE . The cause of death was recorded as splinter wounds and burns .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of the LOC district ( the district prosecutor ’s office ) initiated an investigation into the events of DATE in LOC in response to a complaint by the applicant in the GPE case , cited above .

On DATE the investigation into the criminal case was transferred to the military prosecutor ’s office of the North - Caucasus Military Circuit ( the military prosecutor ’s office ) . The case file was assigned number DATE .

It appears that in DATE the investigation questioned most of the applicants in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as well as other individuals who had been in LOC at the time .

At that time the investigation found it established that CARDINAL civilians had been killed and CARDINAL wounded as a result of the operation . CARDINAL individuals were granted victim status in the proceedings . The applicant ’s relatives and the applicant herself were not listed among the victims .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office terminated the proceedings in criminal case no . DATE . The decision referred to a large quantity of documents and statements from CARDINAL of witnesses , including local residents , servicemen from various units , and commanding officers . The decision also referred to the results of the military experts’ report of DATE , which established that the actions of officers from the ORG involved in the special operation in GPE on DATE had been appropriate to the circumstances and in line with the applicable legal provisions . On this basis the investigation concluded that command corps’ actions were absolutely necessary and proportionate to the resistance put up by the insurgent fighters . It found an absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the servicemen . By the same decision the victim status of CARDINAL individuals was withdrawn . The individuals in question were to be informed of the possibility of seeking redress through civil proceedings .

It appears that the victims were not informed by the prosecutor ’s office about the termination of the proceedings and nothing happened until DATE , when they learnt that the proceedings had been terminated .

DATE the applicants in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL contacted the military prosecutor ’s office in writing , seeking information about the progress of the investigation in case no . DATE . They referred to the circumstances of the deaths and wounding of their family members and asked to be granted formal status of victims in the proceedings .

NORP In response to these requests , DATE the military prosecutor ’s office informed the applicants of the results of the military experts’ report , the termination of proceedings in criminal case no . DATE and the withdrawal of victim status in DATE . The letters also confirmed that the investigation had established the deaths and injuries of which they had complained and informed them that they could apply to a civil court to obtain compensation . Some of these letters contained the decision of DATE as attachment .

On DATE CARDINAL applicants in GPE and Others case lodged a claim with the military court of LOC . They complained about the ineffectiveness and incompleteness of the investigation . In particular , the applicants noted that some of their relatives’ deaths had not been recorded by the investigation and that these persons had not been listed amongst those who died in ORG in DATE . They asked the court to quash the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and to oblige the military prosecutor ’s office to resume the investigation in the criminal case , to grant each of them the status of victim in the criminal proceedings , and to issue them with copies of the relevant decisions . These complaints did not directly refer to the situation of the applicant ’s family .

NORP The applicants’ request was granted and the case was reopened in DATE under the number DATE . However , on DATE the investigation was closed , with the same conclusions as in DATE , on the basis of Article CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW . The decision confirmed the deaths of DATE and the wounding of CARDINAL local residents , without listing their names . An additional expert report was produced by ORG of ORG in DATE , which found that the actions of the command corps in planning and executing the operation had been reasonable and in line with domestic law . No copy of that report has ever been disclosed to the applicants or submitted to ORG . The decision stated in this respect :

“ ... The actions of the fighters ( the occupation of ORG by a group of fighters numbering CARDINAL persons , the fighters establishing strongholds in the houses , [ their ] fierce resistance and their using local residents as a “ human shield ” ) ... represented a real danger to the lives and health of the local residents , and could have entailed unnecessary losses by the federal forces ...

These circumstances required the taking of adequate measures by the command corps in order to prevent the danger of armed assault against the citizens and their lives and property ( residents of ORG and military servicemen ) , in addition to [ the need to safeguard ] the interests of society and the ORG which are protected by law ( the reinstatement of the constitutional order in GPE ) . After issuing a preliminary notification and giving the civilians a real opportunity to leave the village , the subsequent extermination of pockets of the GPE resistance by means of artillery and attack aircraft , employing area - point method ( “ зонально-объектовый метод ” ) , did not exclude deaths among civilians . At the same time , the use of such means of extermination was consistent with the circumstances and with the measures taken in order to minimise losses among civilians . The actions of the command corps ( commanders ) during the preparation and carrying out of the special operation aimed at the liberation of ORG DATE were in line with the requirements of relevant field manuals , internal regulations and instructions , were lawful and did not contain elements of criminally ” .

The decision to grant victim status to CARDINAL people was quashed . The military prosecutor of ORG in LOC ( UGA ) forwarded the decision to the head of ORG , asking it to identify the GPE places of residence and to inform them of the closure of the investigation , as well as the possibility of seeking compensation through the civil courts .

The name of the applicant in the present case was not listed among the CARDINAL individuals who had been granted victim status .

After discharge from hospital , the applicant had to keep plaster on her legs for DATE . Because the hostilities in GPE were still ongoing , her relatives took her to LOC to continue her treatment . In DATE the applicant was taken to GPE for treatment for DATE . In DATE her paternal grandmother , with whom she had been living after her GPE deaths , died . After that the applicant lived with her maternal grandparents in LOC .

In their observations of DATE , the Government stated that in DATE a witness had told the investigators about the deaths of CARDINAL people in a NORP car ( see GPE , cited above , § MONEY ) but their identities were unknown at that time . It was not until the applicant ’s questioning in DATE ( see below ) that the investigation obtained this information .

In DATE a distant relative of the applicant ’s took her to a human rights organisation , at her request , where she found out for the first time that a criminal investigation had been opened into the attack at ORG .

On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to the military prosecutor of the ORG and informed him about the deaths of her CARDINAL relatives and the injuries she suffered on DATE in ORG . She attached CARDINAL death certificates and her discharge papers from the GPE hospital dated DATE .

On DATE the applicant was questioned and granted the status of victim in criminal case no . DATE . At that time the applicant was a minor but the questioning took place in the absence of legal guardian or representative . According to the parties , there is no information indicating the establishment of guardianship over the applicant up to the age of majority .

She was not informed of the decision to close proceedings of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) . The Government submitted in their observations that this had been an omission on the part of the investigator which had been due to the large number of victims in the case .

As is apparent from subsequent documents submitted by the applicant , the investigation into the attack upon ORG was reopened in DATE . The investigators commissioned an additional expert report into the lawfulness and reasonableness of the military intervention . Neither party submitted to the ORG the decision to commission the expert report , the questions put to the experts , or a copy of the report itself , nor is it clear which documents were made available to the experts . The applicant ’s knowledge of and involvement in this procedural step has not been clarified . It appears that the document , as most other documents in the file , has been classified . A summary thereof and summaries of other documents are contained in a CARDINAL - page - long extract from the decision to close the criminal investigation issued by a senior investigator of ORG of ORG in ORG on DATE ( extract dated DATE ) .

The aforementioned extract opensat that time . According to the text , on TIME a group of CARDINAL fighters under the command of field commander PERSON had entered ORG ( also spelled ORG ) . They were armed with automatic firearms , large - calibre machine guns , flame - throwers , portable anti - aircraft launchers and armoured vehicles . On DATE the head of the operations centre ( OC ) of ORG in GPE gave orders to block the village to carry out a special operation . By that time , most inhabitants had left the village and others were hiding in their houses . The decision to evacuate the civilians was taken DATE . The population had been informed of this possibility through the head of the administration and by means of a loudspeaker device mounted on a helicopter . Following skirmishes on the outskirts of ORG and casualties suffered by the security forces , at TIME artillery started to carry out pin - point strikes aimed at clusters of fighters in the centre and on the periphery of the village . After sustaining casualties , a reconnaissance group retreated from ORG on TIME on DATE , following which attack aircraft were called in . Due to the fierce fighting and the artillery and air strikes upon the clusters of fighters , the residents started to leave , and by TIME on DATE “ their outflow had become significant ” . The extract stated that the special operation had continued for DATE , although the strikes continued until DATE . On TIME [ presumably TIME DATE ] a significant proportion of the fighters , numbering CARDINAL in all , had left the village under cover of poor visibility and escaped into the mountains ; CARDINAL had been killed during the operation . The commanders of the special operation had taken measures to arrange the evacuation of civilians but their plans had been upset by the fighters , especially in the initial stages of the operation . Many residents trying to leave the village had been caught in the crossfire between the fighters and the security forces . Most residents had been killed or injured in the initial stages of the operation , in the central part of the village where the most intense fighting had taken place . No conclusive figure of injured or dead civilians , fighters or security forces was given in the extract .

The extract then states that the latest decision to terminate proceedings had occurred on DATE . That decision was quashed on DATE and the investigation was extended until DATE .

The extract goes on to cite statements from various military and civilian witnesses , without indicating their names or ranks or the dates when these statements were taken ( see ORG , cited above , § § DATE ) .

The document also refers to an additional operational - tactical expert report ( “ DATE комиссионная оперативно-тактическая судебная экспертиза ” ) produced on DATE by unnamed “ external experts from the military faculty of ORG ” ( “ внештатные эксперты факультета военного обучения Южного федерального университета ” ) based in GPE - on - Don . As summarised in the extract , the experts’ conclusion did not differ from the findings reached by the previous expert reports commissioned by the investigation ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . The expert report is cited as follows :

“ In DATE the operational situation in the area of the counter - terrorist operation in GPE was extremely tense and difficult . ... After the defeat suffered in the plains of GPE and in PERSON , [ the illegal insurgents ] attempted to move into harsh southern mountainous regions where they would be able to take rest and recover , in order to organise further military action . ... A very difficult situation developed in the area covered by ORG . Their main task was to prevent the illegal insurgents from breaking through from the mountainous areas of GPE to the plains , to identify , disarm and detain members of the illegal armed groups , and to destroy them in the event of armed resistance ...

... In DATE reconnaissance information was received about the taking of ORG by a large group of fighters . The exact number of fighters was unknown . In order to prevent any further gathering of the fighters , it was decided to surround the village and carry out a special operation there ... A plan for the special operation was worked out . The plan detailed the detachments responsible for blocking and searching , the order of fire contact in the event of armed resistance by the fighters , the location of the command headquarters and control points ... The artillery targets were established in advance along the lines of the ORG possible escape routes from ORG and potential arrival of reinforcements , outside of the village . CARDINAL control points ( roadblocks ) were established at the CARDINAL ends of the village to ensure the exit of civilians – one towards ORG and the other towards ORG . The civilians left the village through the CARDINAL roadblocks , along ‘ humanitarian corridors’ .

The head of ORG was informed of the decision to carry out a special operation . He requested postponement in order to ascertain the situation with his own resources and to drive the fighters out of the village . The special operation was postponed for DATE . However , the following morning the fighters attacked ORG [ special police forces ] based in ORG and attempted to break through the lines of the security forces . The security forces sustained casualties . As became apparent during the clashes , the fighters were armed not only with firearms , but also with grenades and fire - launchers , large calibre machine guns , mine - launchers and anti - tank rocket launchers . The fighters were well prepared and were able to use artificial and natural hiding places in order to deliver combat in a populated area . The number of fighters greatly exceeded the security forces ( by CARDINAL times ) . ”

NORP The decision goes on to cite the report ’s conclusion that the use of fighter jets , artillery and mine - launchers upon fortified positions had been justified and that the refusal to employ them would have resulted in heavy losses among the security forces and failure to achieve the goals as set . Over a period of DATE most fighters present in the village were killed ( CARDINAL military unit had reported CARDINAL killed fighters ) .

The report cited military field manuals and concluded that the actions of the commanders had been in full compliance with those acts . The commanders had organised and planned the enforcement of the objectives set . The pin - point air strikes upon previously agreed targets , the direct strikes by artillery and anti - tank rocket launchers , and the tank and anti - tank guns had been directed by forward air controllers and artillery pointers upon clearly established and observed targets .

Page CARDINAL of the extract contains the following citation from the decision : “ the evidential material in the criminal investigation file ... shows that CARDINAL fighters who entered ORG were armed with automatic firearms , large - calibre machine - guns , grenade - launchers and armoured vehicles ; fortified firing points had been established in the captured houses . [ In such circumstances ] the use of artillery and airborne weapons DATE was justified ... ”

As cited in the extract , the experts focused on the use of artillery and aircraft . From the operative military documents referring to the use of artillery it was impossible to discern where and when exactly , and at what targets the artillery had been employed , since all the documents reviewed by the experts were judged by them as either irrelevant to the operation in question or not containing any relevant information . As to the aircraft , they had used aviation bombs and unguided and guided missiles of undisclosed types . The number of aircraft involved and the number and timing of the mission sorties , as well as the number of missiles and bombs used , was not specified . As cited , the report established that during the mission sorties the pilots had received information from the forward controllers , because the missions were taking place in the vicinity of , or within , the populated area . The target selection was done using smoke pods or by reference to clearly identifiable topographical “ highpoints ” . There was no evidence of provocations by fighters or mistakes in selecting targets . The document went on to state that the identification of targets had occurred on the basis of information received prior to departure , from the forward air controllers during the flight , and from the observed activity . Since their use by illegal insurgents could not be verified , attacks on vehicles were ruled out unless very precise and distinguishable directions had been received from the ground . The aircraft attacked from a height of QUANTITY and from a distance of QUANTITY ; from that distance details such as clothing and the presence of firearms could not be distinguished . For that reason , contact with the air controllers was necessary before and after hitting the selected target .

In the cited extract , the experts concluded that “ such engagement of artillery and aviation munitions practically ruled out the likelihood of casualties to civilians , except those who were with the fighters in houses occupied by the latter ” .

They further concluded that the “ employment of a minimal amount of artillery , the choice of the most accurate target direction possible , and the use of the minimum amount of shells necessary ... guaranteed safety from injuries by splinters both for the civilians and security forces . ... Having examined the criminal investigation file , the experts concluded that the OC of the Western Zone Alignment and the head of the special operation in GPE - Yurt had taken all possible measures in order to prevent losses among civilians while planning and carrying out the operation ” .

Turning to the situation of the civilians , the experts judged that they had been able to leave the village along “ humanitarian corridors ” through CARDINAL roadblocks . The information about the corridors had been communicated by means of a helicopter and an armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) . The head of the administration had been properly informed of the beginning of the special operation and , at his request , its start had been postponed for DATE . The civilians had been informed of the need to evacuate and CARDINAL roadblocks had ensured safe and unhindered passage . The civilians had been accorded the time necessary for the evacuation and the transport carrying the civilians was able to travel back and forth through the roadblocks .

While the report , as cited in the extract , conceded that an unspecified number of civilians had been killed during the operation through the use of weapons under the control of the operation ’s commanders , such measures had been in compliance with the appropriate order of decision - taking in the choice of targets and means employed during the special operation .

On the basis of this report , the investigator concluded that the measures resulting in civilian casualties had been absolutely necessary within the meaning of Article CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW ( as in the previous decisions of DATE and DATE see Abuyeva and Others , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

The extract ended by listing the names of the CARDINAL individuals who had been killed , but Mr PERSON ( a son of the applicant in the GPE case , cited above ) was listed twice . It did not contain the names of the applicant ’s CARDINAL family members , nor of her cousin PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . Nor did it contain the names of CARDINAL relatives of applicants CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the Abuyeva and Others case ( see Abuyeva and Others , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . The non - exhaustive list of the wounded included the applicant ; however no separate list of victims has been drawn up ; nor does it appear that a copy of that decision was sent to them .

On DATE a lawyer representing PERSON , another victim in criminal investigation no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL , appealed to ORG against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to close the criminal investigation and to terminate PERSON victim status in the proceedings . The statement of appeal was based on the following grounds : the decision had not been based on the established facts , no proper collection and examination of evidence had taken place and legal classification of the events had been incorrect .

Firstly , it was argued that the investigation had failed to establish the following pertinent facts : the number of illegal fighters in ORG ; the timing and conditions of the transmission of information about the operation and evacuation of civilians ; the purpose of the roadblocks at the CARDINAL extremities of the village ; and the details of the aircraft bombings . As to the number of fighters , the statement of appeal referred to various figures cited in the extract and emphasised the fact that the source of this information had not been identified . Likewise , there was a lack of clarity as to the number of fighters killed , nor were there any indications as to any names , identification procedures etc . The appeal statement also pointed out that the number of the security force personnel involved had not been given ; it was therefore difficult to evaluate the numerical superiority of the fighters and the need to employ massive weapons . Furthermore , the victim challenged the statement that the administration and population of ORG had been informed about the operation in advance , pointing to the absence of any clear evidence in the case - file to that effect . Turning to the roadblocks set up by the security forces , the appeal statement pointed out that there were no grounds for concluding that this measure had facilitated the exit of civilians from ORG and reiterated the findings made in this respect by the ORG in the judgments in the ORG and GPE and Others cases ( both cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , accordingly ) . As to the details of aircraft bombing , it was argued that the investigators had accepted CARDINAL mutually incompatible versions and no steps had been taken in order to clarify whether the pilots , or the aviation controllers who had coordinated the fire , had been able to observe and distinguish legitimate targets ( members of illegal armed groups ) from civilians . It was also pointed out that the employment of unguided missiles and free - falling general purpose bombs in any event ruled out the possibility of limiting the impact to the selected targets .

As regards the incompleteness of the investigation , it was stressed that the investigators had failed to collect the information necessary to evaluate the threat to the civilian population and the appropriateness of the use of selected weapons and ammunition , and to compile an exhaustive list of victims and damage caused . On the last point , it was emphasised that no list of those who had been killed , both civilians and fighters , had ever been compiled and that the information in this regard remained incomplete .

Finally , it was argued that the legal classification of the ORG actions had been incorrect and that the application of Article CARDINAL part CARDINAL of LAW had been unjustified without the prior

On DATE the ORG examined and dismissed the appeal . The court referred to the conclusions of the expert report of DATE , according to which the actions of the operational commanders had been in accordance with the relevant field manuals and other instructions and were justified in view of the numerical superiority of the fighters . The court also found that the evidence collected by the investigation justified the conclusions reached as regards each of the points raised by the appeal . As to execution of the GPE and GPE and Others judgments , the court stressed that in accordance with LAW , and in line with ORG DATE , the investigation had been reopened in DATE and a number of relevant steps had been taken . In particular , a new expert report had been commissioned and carried out . The ORG ’s position on the ineffectiveness of the previous investigation had therefore been taken into account and the failings had been rectified .

The victim appealed . In her appeal of DATE it was stressed that the breach of procedural obligations under LAW in this case had taken on a lasting character . Pointing to the relevant passages in the ORG and GPE and Others judgments , both cited above , the appeal argued that the following fundamental defects of the investigation , as identified by ORG , had not been corrected in the new round of proceedings : there had been no independent evaluation of the proportionality and necessity of the lethal force used ; no individual liability had been established for the aspects of the operation which had led to civilian losses , and these aspects had not been studied and evaluated by an independent body , preferably a judicial one . It was reiterated that the expert report of DATE , as cited in the decision of DATE , had simply repeated the findings of CARDINAL previous expert reports which had already been examined by the ORG . Like DATE , it had not been based on the pertinent facts of the case . Finally , the important question of the total number of victims had still not been resolved , as demonstrated by the failure to include some of the GPE deceased relatives in the total .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal . During the hearing , the victim ’s representative submitted a number of additional points . He concentrated on the relevant precepts of international humanitarian law and the practice of international criminal tribunals which , he argued , should have guided the investigator in his examination of the case . In his view , the decision of DATE had failed to take into account the relevant interpretation of these provisions in so far as it concerned the definition of victims as civilians , and the widespread , systematic , indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on them .

ORG dismissed the appeals . It found that ORG had examined all the relevant evidence and had applied a comprehensive and consistent interpretation thereto . At this stage , the judge was unable to analyse the substance of the question of guilt or innocence , or to evaluate the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence collected . ORG stressed that the victim ’s arguments regarding both the incompleteness of the investigation and the failure to take into account ORG binding judgments had been thoroughly examined and dismissed .

As is apparent from subsequent documents , the victim ’s ORG cassation appeal was unsuccessful . On DATE a judge of ORG refused to accept the request for review , in view of the detailed and well - reasoned decisions of the military courts . The victim ’s argument that the legal position of ORG in the new round of proceedings had not been taken into account was judged to be unfounded .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody . In DATE he was convicted of CARDINAL counts of battery and robbery and received prison sentences ranging from DATE . On DATE ORG imposed a cumulative sentence for CARDINAL criminal convictions .

On DATE the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission imposed on the applicant the so - called “ dangerous detainee ” regime . The commission held that the applicant had been the leader of or an active participant in a planned collective remonstrance in FAC ( Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) , as the detainees refused to accept food provided by the prison authorities . The authorities learned that the detainees were planning another collective protest for DATE . The commission also considered that the applicant was particularly depraved .

On DATE the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant and dismissed his request for leave to examine the appeal outside the statutory time - limit .

Subsequently , the applicant was transferred to FAC .

On DATE ORG reviewed and upheld the decision to apply the regime to the applicant , considering that he posed a serious threat to the security of the detention centre . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court referred to the reasons given in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , holding that the decision had been lawful and justified .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He complained that he was having difficulties in accessing educational activities in FAC . The authorities dismissed the complaint , holding that educational activities were not organised for dangerous prisoners .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant notified the police of his allegedly unlawful classification as a “ dangerous detainee ” on CARDINAL DATE . He claimed that the Opole FAC authorities had exceeded their powers in imposing the regime on him . On DATE the Opole ORG refused to open an investigation in the case , holding that no offence had been committed .

On DATE ORG revoked its decision to classify the applicant as a “ dangerous detainee ” . It considered that the applicant ’s behaviour had improved and that he no longer posed a threat to the security of the remand centre .


Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev

The first applicant was born in DATE . She is the paternal grandmother of the second applicant , who was born in DATE . As of the time when the application was lodged , the first applicant was also the second applicant ’s legal guardian . The applicants live in GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE organised a military aviation show in the “ Sknyliv ” aerodrome in GPE ( “ the PERSON air show ” ) to commemorate DATE CARDINALth ORG . The celebration agenda included a static display of military aircraft and other equipment , and a live aerobatics show by military pilots .

The event was attended by CARDINAL individuals , including the second applicant , aged CARDINAL at the time , accompanied by Sergiy PERSON , her father and the first applicant ’s son , and PERSON , her mother and the first applicant ’s daughter - in - law .

During the aerobatics performance , an SU-CARDINAL military aircraft piloted by ORG and GPE crashed into the static aircraft display site where there were numerous spectators , where it exploded . Both pilots had successfully ejected before the explosion . As a result of the crash , seventyseven people died and over CARDINAL sustained injuries .

Both ORG and PERSON , who were in the epicentre of the accident , died at the scene from numerous fractures and severe cerebral trauma .

At the moment of the crash the second applicant was in the cabin of an IL-CARDINAL airplane on static display , posing for a photograph and waving her hand to her parents . She witnessed her parents being crushed by the aircraft , but did not sustain any physical injuries herself . Subsequently , she underwent psychological rehabilitation programmes intended to help her recover from her emotional trauma .

On various dates several concurrent investigations were opened to establish the circumstances of the accident , including investigation by a special ORG set up for this purpose , ORG , ORG , ORG , and PERSON , a non - governmental organisation founded by survivors of the accident and those who had lost relatives at the air show .

On DATE the President of GPE set up a special ORG for the investigation of the causes of the catastrophe of the military aircraft of ORG of GPE ; “ the ORG ” ) with a specific mandate to investigate the circumstances of the accident and coordinate assistance to its victims . The Commission was chaired by the President of ORG . Other members of the Commission included senior officials from ORG , Interior and ORG , officers of ORG of GPE , ORG of ORG , ORG , and ORG . ORG also engaged several experts from the “ LOC construction bureau ( the SU-CARDINAL aircraft manufacturer , GPE ) and CARDINAL test pilots from GPE as aviation experts .

Following the investigation , which included inspecting the accident site , interviewing individuals involved in the organisation of the air show and examining the relevant documents , as well as deciphering data from the flight data recorders , on an unspecified date in DATE ORG reported on the facts as follows .

NORP In DATE Colonel - General MONEY ( ORG ) authorised the aerobatics show at the request of ORG ( the CARDINALth Corps Commander ) . ORG appointed a mixed team of officers from different units , including Colonel PERSON , from GPE , GPE as the first pilot ; Colonel GPE , of ORG , stationed in GPE , as the second pilot ; and Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON . , stationed in GPE , as the aerobatic performance director . Lieutenant - General PERSON and ORG PERSON , both stationed locally in GPE with ORG , were also designated to join the mission , one as “ air show flights director ” and the other as “ chief safety officer ” .

On DATE GPE , GPE and GPE . carried out their only training flight as a team . On the orders of ORG , the flight took place at a military aerodrome in GPE , near GPE . According to ORG , that flight could not qualify as a rehearsal for the performance at the air show , as it included a different sequence of manoeuvres ; its purpose was rather to improve and practise piloting techniques . The ORG also established that ORG had requested an additional training flight in GPE and that his request had been turned down by the command , citing a shortage of fuel . Although the air show preparation programme included an on - site rehearsal flight on DATE , the CARDINALth ORG Commander decided to cancel it for the same reason . The pilots were not formally apprised of the boundaries of the aerobatics zone or the placement of spectators .

Before the show , the pilots were provided with a different aircraft from the one in which they had carried out their training flight . There was a certain asynchronism in the performance of the right and left engines of this aircraft . Overall , however , it was in an acceptable technical condition and remained fully operational until it crashed . The aircraft had been supplied with extra fuel in order to enable the pilots to return to GPE without landing at the site of the air show . The fact that the pilots had trained in a different aircraft and with less fuel had a negative impact on their readiness for performing aerobatic displays . For unspecified reasons , the pilots decided to take off without the mandatory anti - gravitation suits ( “ g - suits ” ) . On arrival at the PERSON aerodrome , the pilots immediately started the performance , without taking any time to familiarise themselves with the site , which was new to them . During the performance , the aircraft exited the designated aerobatics zone , the boundary of which was QUANTITY from the spectators’ area . Neither PERSON nor GPE . , directing the flight from the ground , warned them of that fact or directed them to return to the designated zone . Still outside of the zone , ORG decided to perform a certain aerobatic display ( called “ the trunk ” ) , which he had never practised before and which was not included in his mission order . He made a technical mistake in its performance and , as the second pilot did not intervene when appropriate , the pilots lost control of the aircraft and it started falling . Subsequent efforts by the crew to regain altitude were futile . Accordingly , ORG concluded that the principal cause of the accident was a technical mistake on the part of the first pilot in performing a manoeuvre which he had not been commissioned to perform . It also noted that the prompt and appropriate intervention of the second pilot could have saved the situation and that loss of life and damage to health could have been avoided had the ground crew properly guided the pilots to stay within the aerobatics zone .

ORG also noted serious shortcomings in the organisation of the air show , including poor coordination between various officers and authorities involved in its preparation ; unsatisfactory crew training , and lack of appropriate emergency and spectator - safety planning , which contributed to the disaster . The Commission noted , in particular , as follows :

“ The serious consequences of the aviation catastrophe ... were the result of irresponsibility , negligence , lack of discipline , official neglect and breach of applicable regulations ... on the part of many leading officers of ORG , in particular , the generals and officers of ORG .

The tragedy was also the result of the absence of a system of effective supervision of the execution of orders ... by the respective air force officials DATE from its Commander - in - Chief to the members of the crew of the SU-CARDINAL . As a result , the generals and officers involved in the preparation and staging of [ the air show ] were not apprised of the real state of affairs concerning the necessary measures to be carried out , while the immediate participants in the aerobatic performance proved to be ill - prepared for it . ”

The Special Commission criticised , in particular , PERSON ( the ORG Commander - in - Chief ) and his colleagues from ORG responsible for the military training – Lieutenant - General PERSON and ORG for not having developed appropriate specific normative guidelines for the aerobatic performances . In the ORG ’s view , these were much needed given the lack of general regulations on the relevant matters . ORG also criticised PERSON and his colleagues for not having ensured a proper distribution of tasks between their subordinates engaged in the show and their direct supervision on behalf of ORG . In ORG opinion , such supervision was particularly important in view of the involvement in the show of officers from different military units that were not subordinate to each other and not accustomed to performing any tasks together . It also noted that Lieutenant - General S.O. ( the CARDINALth ORG Commander ) and his subordinates , in particular ORG and Colonel PERSON ( the CARDINALth ORG chief flight safety officer ) , had failed to put in place any meaningful land - and - air safety precautions plan . In addition , ORG regretted ORG ’s decision to cancel the on - site rehearsal flight and concluded that the officers designated to direct the flight as ground crew ( ORG and GPE . ) had had no relevant experience or clearance for such a mission .

ORG also reported on numerous procedural breaches on the part of the local administration and municipal authorities in authorising the air show . In particular , PERSON , deputy mayor of GPE with responsibility for humanitarian issues , had exceeded his authority in authorising it instead of the mayor himself . The mayor , having learned of the military authorities’ initiative to organise the air show , took little action to coordinate the relevant preparatory activities . The show was authorised without the involvement of the competent officers and services legally responsible for carrying out assessments of the relevant safety risks and for taking the necessary prevention and response measures . The local authorities also failed to set up a necessary air show coordination committee and to organise a safety inspection of the aerodrome site before the show .

In DATE ORG produced a Report on the internal investigation , largely reiterating the findings of ORG . In particular , it concurred that the immediate cause of the accident was the first pilot ’s unforeseen misconduct , whose grave consequences could have been avoided or mitigated , were it not for the second pilot ’s and the ground crew ’s failure to intervene in good time . It also recognised that the organisation of the air show had been marked by significant shortcomings , including an unsatisfactory land and air safety precautions plan ; refusal to arrange CARDINAL training flight for the crew over the PERSON aerodrome ; and poor supervision by ORG and ORG of the preparatory activities . In addition , it was noted that the necessary regulatory framework was missing , and the organisers had drawn guidelines from the regulations on ordinary military training , which were not adapted for staging air shows for civilian spectators .

Referring to the conclusions of the investigation , on DATE the Minister of Defence issued order no . CARDINAL ( On the unsatisfactory organisation of the demonstration flight and the SU-CARDINAL aircraft disaster at the PERSON aerodrome ) , whereby a number of officers engaged in the organisation of the show were subjected to disciplinary sanctions . In particular , Lieutenant - General PERSON ( the CARDINALth Corps Commander ) was demoted ; Lieutenant - General O.V. , ( Deputy ORG Commander - in - Chief on military training ) was dismissed from the military “ for unsatisfactory performance of service duties in respect of the preparation for and supervision of the air show at the Sknyliv aerodrome , and for personal irresponsibility ” ; ORG was dismissed from the military “ for a negligent attitude to the performance of service duties and low personal executive discipline ” ; and CARDINAL other high - ranking ORG officers received warnings and were subjected to other sanctions . In addition , ORG , the ORG Commander - in - Chief , was also dismissed from the military service on disciplinary grounds , and the new ORG Commander - in - Chief was instructed to impose disciplinary sanctions on “ other officers guilty of breaches of duty during the preparation and staging of the air show ” . The issue of disciplinary responsibility for the pilots of the crashed aircraft and the ground crew which had operated their flight , was reserved pending a criminal investigation of the accident .

On DATE ORG delivered its report . It stated that numerous authorities shared , to various extents , common responsibility for the poor organisation of the show . It noted , in particular , that :

“ DATE . ... in the course of the preparation and staging of the demonstration flights ... the military establishments , the specialised central ORG aviation facilities and departments , the municipal authorities and their particular officers failed to comply with a number of provisions of the current law , governing the procedure of preparation and staging the events of such a scale , which failures , to various extents , resulted in the catastrophe and such a major loss of human life ... ”

The Commission concluded that the local authorities had played an ancillary role in the organisation of the air show . However , they had acted negligently in authorising it in breach of formal procedures and without soliciting all relevant information from the military authorities . They had also failed to develop an appropriate emergency prevention and response plan for the air show . According to the ORG , the municipal authority had been completely disengaged from any safety - related decision - making and its overall performance had been marked by “ ... a certain confusion and lack of clear understanding by the higher officers of the scope of their responsibilities . ” In view of this , the ORG recommended that ORG evaluate the performance of the Mayor and other municipal officers and clarify its policy concerning the distribution of functions between them . It also invited the Mayor to impose disciplinary sanctions on his staff members who were at fault for breach of duty .

The Commission next concluded that the negligence of the city authority had not been a direct cause of the accident , and attributed the primary responsibility for it to the military authorities , having provided the following overall political assessment of the accident :

“ [ the accident is ] ... a consequence of the generally irresponsible policy of ORG , which has neglected reformation of the ORG and the ORG , leading to a loss unprecedented for a civilised country ... of military efficiency and patriotic spirit , criminally negligent performance of their official duties by the military command at all levels , loss of pride in the military service and marginalisation of the material and technical procurement of the armed forces and military servicemen ...

“ ... [ the accident ] ... demonstrated the inadequacy of the current legal framework , the inadequacy of the ORG control system in respect of flight safety ; irresponsible and negligent performance by officers at all levels of their duties under the law in force ; the need to establish civilian control over the activities of the army ; and the need to modernise and effectively reform the armed forces of GPE ... ”

On DATE the Sknyliv Tragedy Lviv - based ORG founded by the relatives of the accident victims and its survivors published its own investigation report based on interviews and other information collected from public and private sources . In addition , the report featured an assessment of ORG piloting techniques by PERSON , a civil aviation pilot , who had lost family members at the PERSON air show .

Similarly to the reports produced by the governmental authorities , the authors of this report concluded that the immediate cause of the crash was error by the first pilot in performing a manoeuvre , which had been neither envisaged by his mission order nor practised by him before the show , while the second pilot and ground crew did not take the opportunity to intervene in respect of the first pilot ’s conduct . In addition to that , in the opinion of the authors of the report , ORG Commander - in - Chief and the CARDINALth ORG Commander , who had been watching the performance from the VIP lounge , had also failed to act to prevent the accident , as they had had direct radio connection with the ground crew and could have intervened at any moment .

Notwithstanding the aforementioned findings , in the opinion of the authours of the report , the accident had largely resulted from a structural problem . The responsibility for it had to be borne by numerous entities , including ORG , ORG , the authorities of the CARDINALth ORG , the GPE city and regional authorities , and the civil aviation authorities ( ORG and ORG ) , which had given permission for the aerobatic performance without checking its terms of reference .

NORP In particular , the authors of the report considered that the GPE mission had been poorly developed and had not been properly communicated to all parties involved . The mission order approved on DATE by Lieutenant - General PERSON of ORG was at variance with the aircraft specifications . A subsequent explanatory document to the mission order approved by Colonel PERSON , the first pilot ’s direct supervisor , was inconsistent with these specifications and with the aforementioned mission order . None of these documents specified such important parameters of the mission as engine performance mode , attack angles and acceleration coefficient to be observed during particular manoeuvres . Marginal flight parameters , such as minimum speed and height and maximal attack angle , which had been developed by ORG officers , were unsuitable for the performance of most of the manoeuvres which formed part of the event programme .

The authors of the report also criticised ORG for designating too small an aerobatics zone , ( QUANTITY , when CARDINAL xCARDINAL,CARDINAL metres would have been required ) . They noted that it was technically impossible for the pilots to perform their programme within the boundaries of this zone and not to find themselves above the spectators’ heads .

Finally , the report also attributed part of the responsibility for the accident to the local municipal and regional authorities , which had disengaged themselves from any safety - related and emergency - prevention planning as well as to the civil aviation authorities ( the NORP and ORG agencies ) for giving authorisations for the air space to be used in breach of the relevant procedural rules .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings to investigate the circumstances of the accident .

On DATE the case was transferred for investigation to ORG and assigned to the Deputy Chairman of ORG of ORG for Military ORG . The team of some CARDINAL investigators and other officers from the military prosecutor ’s office dedicated to the case was supplemented by CARDINAL civilian investigative officers from ORG , department of the interior and ORG . The composition of the team was modified on several occasions , each time consisting of both military and civilian officers .

On DATE the prosecution commissioned an aviation expert assessment , which was carried out by a group of CARDINAL ORG officers in active service , a retired ORG flight safety specialist and a civilian aviation expert .

On DATE the group produced its report , in which it concurred with the earlier findings made by ORG and other entities concerning the principal causes of the accident . As regards the quality of the organisation of the show , the experts found that the GPE mission as such had not been incompatible with the SU-CARDINAL specifications , and that the size and location of the aerobatics zone had been acceptable . At the same time , in the experts’ view , the organisational flaws had included , among others , a failure on the part of the superior officers to draw up comprehensive documents and guidelines in order for the crew to understand the scope of their mission , and to supervise more closely the execution of orders .

On CARDINAL DATE the civilian expert engaged in the above assessment issued a separate opinion in which he stated , inter alia , that in his view the aerobatics zone had been too small ; its location had been inherently dangerous and the GPE mission order had been incompatible with the SUCARDINAL specifications .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office solicited an opinion from CARDINAL other experts , both retired ORG officers , who at the material time had been on the staff of ORG scientific centre for combat application , to clarify the matters in dispute and other questions .

On DATE the investigation obtained a conclusion by these CARDINAL experts , in which they reported of numerous shortcomings in the air show organisation . In addition to the shortcomings pointed in the earlier ORG report , they concluded that the aerobatics zone was too small ; the boundaries of the zone were not clearly marked on site so as to be visible from the aircraft , which factor impaired the ORG ability to orient themselves ; the location of the aerobatics zone was potentially dangerous in case of any unforeseen situation ; the airfield ’s preparation for the show was carried out without any account being taken of the possibility of pilot error or any other emergency ; the crew did not receive a single mission order defining its mission according to all applicable standards ; various documents defining its flight parameters were not comprehensive and not fully consistent with each other ; the officers of the flight safety service failed to reveal the above shortcomings ; the pilots were allowed to take off without g - suits and their preparedness being checked by any competent authority ; the position of “ air show flights director ” assigned to ORG , which did not feature in any military training documents , appeared to be redundant ; it paralleled that of the ordinary aerodrome flights director , with a lack of clarity as to the distribution of authority between the CARDINAL officers ; neither ORG nor Colonel GPE . , who directed the flight , had the proper clearance , experience , and qualifications ; and there was no assessment of the quality of the first pilot ’s piloting technique during the training flight in GPE on DATE . In practice , the pilots’ training was coordinated and supervised only by Colonel PERSON , stationed at the NORP aerodrome , who had neither the authority nor the qualifications to assess their preparedness . The experts also noted that , regard being had to the army hierarchy , it was for ORG Commander - in - Chief to issue an appropriate formal order clearly designating the officers responsible for the mission and determining their personal responsibilities , as well as to bear responsibility for their proper training , since the programme envisaged the involvement of crew members and the use of equipment from various military units .

According to the experts , these and other shortcomings constituted breaches of numerous provisions contained in the relevant regulatory framework , including special military aviation guidelines , in particular : Guidelines for execution of flights for ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of the Deputy Minister of Defence on DATE ( ORG по виконанню польотів в авіації PERSON , GPE ) ; ORG of ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of ORG Commander of GPE on DATE ( ORG по штурманській службі авіації PERSON , ORG ) ; General Rules on FAC in ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of ORG Commander of GPE on DATE ( ORG правила польотів у повітряному просторі GPE , ORG ) ; ORG in ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of ORG Commander on DATE ( NORP про запобігання авіаційних подій у ORG , ORG ) , and several others . Similarly to the findings contained in other reports , the experts concluded , in particular , as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL of the reasons for the emergence of the ... incident ... was the existence of significant shortcomings in the ... preparation and staging of the ... air show and lack of clear distribution of duties between the officers ... which , in turn , led to lack of coordination between ... the persons engaged in the preparation , as well as to the absence of effective control over their activity . ”

If the foregoing normative acts had been unconditionally complied with , the breaches in the organisation of the demonstration flight could have been detected and remedied , and the grave consequences avoided ... ”

The investigation ended on DATE . CARDINAL officers , including both pilots and their ground support crew ; the ORG Commander - in - Chief ( GPE ) ; GPE and ORG ; the Commander of the CARDINALth Corps ( ORG ) ; the CARDINALth corps chief safety officer ( ORG ) and the commander of the ORG unit based in GPE ( PERSON ) were committed for trial .

On an unspecified date in DATE S.O. , previously demoted from his post as CARDINALth ORG Commander , was appointed first deputy ORG Commander - in - Chief .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General disjoined the criminal proceedings against GPE , ORG and ORG and referred their case ( hereafter referred to as “ the ORG case ” ) for additional investigation . He found , in particular , that it was necessary to clarify whether there was a causal link between the omissions imputed to those officers and the aircraft crash .

For that purpose , on DATE CARDINAL civilian experts were commissioned to carry out an additional assessment . The CARDINAL defendants challenged that appointment , alleging that the experts concerned were not competent to evaluate their performance . PERSON proposed CARDINAL other candidates in their stead . The prosecutor ’s office dismissed the challenge to the civilian experts , but agreed to include CARDINAL of the candidates proposed by ORG in the group , having found that they were sufficiently independent . It rejected the other CARDINAL candidates , citing possible conflict of interest in view of their current or former employment with ORG . Subsequently , CARDINAL more retired military officers were included in the group , which finally consisted of CARDINAL civilian experts and CARDINAL retired military officers . CARDINAL of the military officers ( including the CARDINAL candidates proposed by ORG ) were serving at the material time in the faculty of ORG and the fifth expert was deputy director for flight safety at a military aircraft repair company belonging to ORG .

On DATE the CARDINAL military experts produced a report in which they concluded that all CARDINAL defendants had duly fulfilled their responsibilities in respect of the organisation of the air show and that none of them had breached any service duty or other applicable provisions . The group also concluded that the applicable legal framework governing the staging of military air shows and the organisation of aerobatic performances had been adequate and sufficient and that there had been no need for the defendants to develop any additional rules or guidelines before the air show . In the group ’s view , the misconduct by the first pilot was the sole cause of the accident . Their conclusion , insofar as relevant , read as follows :

“ The only reason for the crash of the SU-CARDINAL aircraft was the execution by the pilot of an unplanned piloting manoeuvre , in the course of which he committed grave errors in piloting technique , which caused the falling of the aircraft and the catastrophic consequences . ”

On CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL civilian experts also produced a report , which largely replicated the findings and the language of the report issued by their military counterparts .

In the meantime , on an unspecified date , the case in respect of the pilots , the ground crew and CARDINAL other officers of the lower rank ( hereafter the “ performers’ case ” ) was transferred to the court for trial .

During the trial , the defendants pleaded innocent of any wrongdoing . In particular , ORG noted that there had been no normative document defining the responsibilities of an “ air show flights director ” . Having been appointed to this position created by order of the CARDINALth ORG Commander , he had developed his own reference document listing his duties for the Commander ’s approval and had done his best in performing them . In his opinion , the appointment could not have made him responsible for direct supervision of the ORG training at a different airfield and ensuring their readiness , as neither of them had belonged to the CARDINALth ORG or been placed under his command . He considered that regard being had to their position in the military hierarchy , the pilots had to report directly to the ORG Commander - in - Chief .

Colonel PERSON of the CARDINALth Corps flight safety service likewise asserted that he had properly performed his service duties and had prepared sufficient documentation concerning flight safety during the air show . He had submitted the relevant documents for review by ORG as well as by the relevant sectors in ORG , and had not received any negative feedback . Colonel PERSON further admitted that he had never personally instructed the pilots on the safety measures and had never checked on their readiness for the flight . In his view , such responsibilities fell outside his authority and had to be carried out by the ORG direct superiors , who did not belong to ORG .

Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON . , the aerobatic performance director , asserted that , having been informed of the size and boundaries of the aerobatics zone on DATE , he had warned ORG and the pilots of his doubts concerning its safety . However , having been told that the relevant parameters had been approved by the higher command and it was too late to change anything , he had executed the orders of his superiors and directed the flight as best he could .

Colonel PERSON ( the first pilot ) alleged , in particular , that during the flight the aircraft had become uncontrollable due to forces beyond his control . He denied an accusation that he had deviated from his mission order , and submitted that in his view the way to perform the disputed manoeuvre was a matter for the pilot ’s discretion , particularly as his mission order had no specific instructions to this end . Moreover , prior to the flight , he had discussed the disputed manoeuvre with Colonel PERSON ( the second pilot ) , who he had considered to be the crew captain , as he was higher in the military hierarchy , and the latter had no objections to his choice . Colonel V.T. also noted that the documents defining his mission had not defined the boundaries of the aerobatics zone . He had been taken by surprise when he saw on arrival on site that the spectators were to the left of the runway , as according to his orders , his manoeuvres were also to be carried out to the left . In any event , he considered himself obliged to carry out his orders without arguing .

NORP Colonel GPE ( the second pilot ) submitted that he had considered the first pilot to be the crew captain and that he himself was obliged to refrain from interfering with his actions . He concurred with the first pilot that the way to execute the disputed manoeuvre , which was not specified in the mission order , was a matter for the pilot ’s discretion .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a panel consisting of CARDINAL military judges and acting as a firstinstance court , found both pilots , the air show flights director and the aerobatic performance director guilty of breaches of flight regulations within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) and sentenced them to CARDINAL , six and DATE imprisonment respectively . It further found the chief of the CARDINALth Corps flight safety service guilty of having a negligent attitude towards military service within the meaning of LAW paragraph QUANTITY of the ORG , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , suspended , with probation . By way of reasoning , the court referred extensively to the relevant findings of ORG and the aviation experts’ assessment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) in so far as they related to the actions of the above officers , as well as described the overall shortcomings in organising the show .

The sixth defendant , Colonel PERSON , who had coordinated ORG and GPE ’s training programme in GPE and supplied the aircraft for the show , was found to have performed his duties in good faith and acquitted .

On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE upheld this judgment on appeal and it became final .

In the meantime , on an unspecified date ORG decided to continue with the “ organisers’ case ” , having disagreed with the expert conclusions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and on DATE suspended ORG ’s authority as the Deputy ORG Commander .

On DATE the defendants in this case were committed for trial on charges of having a negligent attitude towards military service within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG . ORG and V.A. were additionally charged with breaches of flight regulations within the meaning of LAW ORG . Finally , GPE and GPE were additionally charged with exceeding their authority within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG by inappropriately using ORG funds for a celebration of a bogus memorial date and staging aerobatic performances in the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a panel of CARDINAL military judges and acting as a first - instance court , acquitted all CARDINAL defendants of the above charges , largely relying on the expert conclusions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . It found that the provisions of LAW ORG did not apply to ORG and GPE , as they had not operated the flight and had not been directly involved in its preparation . Other charges were dismissed as unsubstantiated . In particular , all the defendants were found to have carried out their service duties properly . The court noted that they had taken numerous measures to ensure proper organisation of the show and had produced a large volume of documents correctly delegating tasks to different officers . They had also reasonably trusted the pilots , the supporting crew and other officers to carry out the tasks assigned to them . No legal act could be interpreted as conferring on the defendants a different range of duties or imposing an obligation to act in a different manner . The relevant allegations of the prosecution , as well as the conclusions of ORG and the expert findings dated DATE in respect of the defendants were incorrect , being based partly on an overly broad interpretation of the applicable legal provisions and partly on references to provisions that were wrongly applied in the context . The court did not refer to the internal investigation of ORG in its judgment . The relevant excerpts of the court judgment read as follows :

“ ... the members of the [ ORG ] concluded that the immediate cause of the catastrophe ... derived from mistakes in the piloting technique ... outside the designated aerobatics zone ... The same conclusion was adopted by the court , which examined the criminal case concerning [ V.T. ] and others . All other circumstances connected to the organisation of the show in the court ’s view did not in any way affect the wrongdoings by [ the first pilot ] and , moreover , they could not have been foreseen or taken into account by the organisers of the show ...

... As far as the size of the aerobatics zone was concerned , which , according to the experts , was insufficient for the performance of the mission ... this breach was not the cause of the catastrophic situation , since the SU-CARDINAL aircraft was practically never within its boundaries ...

Reports on the crew ’s readiness for the flight were produced properly , and it was following their receipt that [ V.S. ] as well as [ S.O. ] gave permission for the flight to go ahead ;

The decision to hold the show was taken by the CARDINALth ORG Commander [ S.O. ] : this decision was coordinated by him with the ORG Commander - in - Chief [ V.S. ] , and they acted within the scope of their authority . With a view to preparation of the festivities and organisation of the flight by TIME ORG jointly with ORG took a number of relevant measures : orders were issued ; show plans were drafted ; agendas were put in place ; and air and static display schemes were developed ... The CARDINALth Corps Commander performed his duties with respect to the preparation of the show in accordance with the applicable law , having properly distributed duties among his subordinates ... Issues concerning preparation of the show and supervision over the performance of the delegated tasks were discussed at meetings organised by [ S.O. ] ...

The court ’s conclusions ... are also not affected by the cancellation of the [ on - site ] ... rehearsal flight ... In the court ’s view , this fact did not affect the cause of the disaster , which was deviation by [ V.T. ] from his mission ... ”

The Prosecutor ’s Office and numerous injured parties appealed against this verdict before ORG of ORG . In its appeal , the prosecution asserted , in particular , that the preparation for the show was based exclusively on the military training documents , which took no account of the specifics of an aerobatic performance involving civilian spectators . Lacking a body of relevant legislation and regulations , ORG had been obliged to develop specific documents adapting the military training rules for this purpose before planning the show . As an aerobatics performance could not be equated to an ordinary military training flight , a special training programme had to be set up , and the crew had to have special clearance . However , the reports by ORG , ORG and the aviation experts indicated that not only did the defendants fail to act in developing relevant rules and regulations , but they also failed to supervise compliance with the existing general rules . The court ’s findings were at odds with the findings by these authorities , and no justification was provided for them . Moreover , they were inconsistent with the court ’s own position adopted in the judgment of DATE , where it heavily relied on the conclusions of ORG and the aviation expert assessment in examining various aspects of the case and had referred to the relevant findings concerning poor organisation of the show in its reasoning .

On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE rejected the appeals and upheld the acquittals .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first and second applicants lodged civil actions within the aforementioned criminal proceedings . They claimed CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) and ORG CARDINAL respectively for non - pecuniary damage inflicted by the deaths of ORG and PERSON . Subsequently they increased their claims , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages respectively . No claim for damage on account of the second applicant ’s presence at the scene of the accident was submitted .

On DATE , contemporaneously with the verdict in the “ performers’ case ” , the court awarded each applicant UAH CARDINAL in nonpecuniary damage , to be paid by ORG . It also awarded ORG CARDINAL each to the father , mother and sister of PERSON .

On DATE ORG of ORG rejected the ORG appeals , in which they claimed higher compensation .

On DATE the second applicant received the judgment award due to her .

In DATE the first applicant received UAH CARDINAL of the judgment debt due to her .

According to the ORG , the remaining ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL were paid to the first applicant on DATE . They presented a copy of the decision of ORG dated DATE terminating the enforcement proceedings , in view of the fact that the judgment had been duly enforced .

When submitting their observations on the case in response to those of the Government , the applicants additionally submitted copies of the judgments of the PERSON and FAC dated DATE and DATE , awarding the second applicant DATE allowances of UAH CARDINAL and UAH CARDINAL in connection with the loss of the financial support of her mother and father respectively . These allowances were to be paid by ORG until the second applicant ’s eighteenth birthday . ORG was also obliged to pay lump sums of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in back payments under the first and second judgments respectively . These judgments were not appealed against and became final .

Enforcement proceedings were initiated with respect to both judgments , however , according to the applicants , only the second of them was being enforced . They submitted that the debt under the first judgment amounted to the hryvnia equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time of the exchange of observations between the parties .

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE allocated CARDINAL NORP hryvnias from the ORG reserve fund to ORG towards liquidating the consequences of the accident ( Decree no . CARDINAL ) .

DATE . On DATE ORG created a commission to deal with distribution of the above funds , and determined the categories of expenses to be covered ( Decree no . CARDINAL ) . According to the ORG ’s decision , UAH CARDINAL was to be distributed to the families of the deceased . The sums were to be disbursed to spouses , children , parents and dependents of the deceased victims , in amounts ranging from UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL to UAH CARDINAL depending on the family circumstances . The decree further allocated a total of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the surviving victims ; UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL to help the families with arranging funerals and providing gravestones ; UAH CARDINAL towards medical and rehabilitation costs ; UAH CARDINAL towards prosthetic care and relevant rehabilitation expenses , and the remaining funds to other categories of expenses . According to the Government , the relevant funds were disbursed to the addressees before DATE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE decided to transfer DATE salary of each Member of ORG , with their consent , to the benefit of the PERSON accident victims .

On DATE ORG decided how to distribute the ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL received by the municipality in charitable donations ( Decree no . CARDINAL ) . According to this decision , UAH CARDINAL of these funds were to be distributed to the families of the deceased ; UAH CARDINAL to those with serious irreversible health damage ; UAH CARDINAL to those with serious injuries and who were receiving in - patient treatment ; ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to those with injuries of medium seriousness and who were receiving in - patient treatment , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to those receiving outpatient treatment .

On various other occasions the authorities took additional decisions allocating financial and other assistance to various categories of the victims ( such as decrees no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , and no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL March CARDINAL by ORG , Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE by the Lviv Mayor , and others ) . Pursuant to these decisions , further funds were allocated for medical check - ups and rehabilitation procedures , to cover the costs of holidays in recreational facilities for children , and for lump - sum payments to victims of the accident .

The first applicant and Mr GPE , her husband ( the third member of the applicants’ household ) received UAH CARDINAL each from the ORG budget in connection with the deaths of their son and daughter - in - law , and about ORG CARDINAL in funeral and other assistance .

The second applicant received a global amount of UAH CARDINAL from ORG funds .

The applicants were also provided with holiday vouchers to go to LOC in DATE and exempted from payment of the second applicant ’s kindergarten fees . A further cumulative amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was made available to the applicants’ household from charitable funds collected by the ORG authorities for the PERSON air show accident victims .

The parents of PERSON received a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in ORG aid and around UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in charitable donations .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary

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

On TIME , the applicant was digging potatoes together with his wife and PERSON ( Ms ) , a neighbour , near his house . The applicant and PERSON had consumed some vodka at breakfast .

The applicant ’s DATE daughter was in the house , together with his DATE stepson , PERSON , who was watching cartoons on a DVD player . The house was locked , and the key was in the applicant ’s pocket .

At TIME , when the applicant was carrying a sack of potatoes to the cellar , his wife asked him to have a look at the children . He was gone for TIME . When he returned , he said that he had had some beer .

At TIME , when the work was finished , the applicant went to the house . He came out and told his wife that her son was dead . When she entered the living room , she saw PERSON lying on the floor with a cable around his neck . The television set was overturned on the floor nearby . The applicant expressed a presumption that ORG had tried to reach the remote control on top of the television , had overturned the television and , as a result , had accidentally been strangled by the cables .

Somebody called the police . By the time they arrived , ORG had been put in his bed and the television had been placed on a bed in a different room . The applicant and his wife were questioned as witnesses . They admitted that they had relocated the body and the television , and explained that they had done so because they had felt stressed .

An autopsy of the child was carried out and in TIME of the same day the expert who had conducted it called the investigator and informed him that the boy had been strangled by somebody , and had not died as a result of an accident .

NORP The investigator , together with the police officer on duty , returned to the applicant ’s house and inspected the scene once again . The applicant maintained his account that there had been an accident . The police officers took him to the police station , without formally deciding on his procedural status . The applicant did not object .

The police officer on duty had a conversation with the applicant and suggested that he “ tell the truth ” . As a result , at TIME the applicant wrote a statement of “ voluntary surrender to the police ” , in which he explained that he had strangled PERSON having got angry about the mess in the room . The statement contained a note that the applicant had been familiarised with the content of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , DATE , a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of murder of a child .

The applicant spent TIME in the police station .

At TIME on DATE , the applicant was formally arrested as a suspect . He wrote in the arrest report that he waived his right to legal defence and regretted what he had done .

On DATE the applicant wrote another statement of “ voluntary surrender to the police ” with the same content as the previous one .

On DATE the applicant was granted legal aid and a lawyer was appointed for him . During his questioning as an accused and during the reconstruction of the crime , in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant maintained his confession .

On DATE the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination , apparently in the context of the judicial decision on his pre - trial detention . No injuries were found on him and he did not raise any complaints before the expert .

NORP In DATE ( the exact date is not legible in the available copy ) a forensic medical expert confirmed the findings of the autopsy report that ORG had died as a result of strangulation .

On an unspecified date the applicant signed an agreement on his legal representation by PERSON

On DATE the applicant ’s father , acting on the applicant ’s behalf , signed a legal assistance agreement with PERSON ( the lawyer who also represented the applicant in the proceedings before this ORG ) . On the same date PERSON joined the proceedings as the applicant ’s lawyer . It appears that PERSON NORP too continued to represent the applicant .

On DATE the applicant refused the services of Mr R.

On DATE the investigator ordered the applicant ’s forensic psychiatric examination with a view to establishing whether he could be held liable for the criminal offence with which he was charged .

On DATE experts completed the aforementioned examination . They concluded that the applicant , although showing an indication of “ slight intellectual retardation on the verge of a slight mental disability ” ( легка інтелектуальна недостатність на межі легкої дебільності ) , was aware of his actions and could control them .

On DATE , during his questioning as an accused , the applicant retracted his confession and claimed his innocence . He submitted that he “ had incriminated himself under the physical and psychological coercion of the police ” .

On DATE the investigator decided that the applicant ’s allegation warranted a separate investigation . He therefore severed from the case file certain materials which could be of relevance ( such as the applicant ’s confession , the transcript of his various questioning sessions and the report of his forensic medical examination ) .

On DATE an additional forensic medical expert evaluation , which had been carried out at the request of the applicant ’s lawyer , was completed . The expert excluded the possibility that ORG had been accidentally strangled by the television cables when the television set had fallen on him , as had been suggested by the applicant , and confirmed that that could not be the origin of his bruises either .

On DATE ORG refused to open a criminal case in respect of the applicant ’s allegation that he had been coerced by the police , having found that there was no indication of a criminal offence .

On DATE the applicant was indicted .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a court of first instance , found the applicant guilty of murder of a child and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It relied , in particular , on the applicant ’s statement of “ voluntary surrender to the police ” of DATE and the confessions he had made on CARDINAL DATE and maintained thereafter until DATE . The court decided , however , not to take into account his statement of CARDINAL October CARDINAL on the grounds that it could no longer be regarded as a “ voluntary surrender to the police ” and the applicant should have been questioned as a suspect and legally represented . Furthermore , the court relied on the material and expert evidence . The applicant ’s allegation of police coercion was dismissed as unsubstantiated . The trial court took into account the fact that the applicant had decided to write a “ voluntary surrender to the police ” as a mitigating factor in fixing his sentence .

On DATE a copy of the judgment was served on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law . He complained , in particular , of the lack of access to a lawyer during his initial questioning at the police station on DATE . He submitted that he had been coerced into confessing by “ physical violence and psychological pressure ” . The applicant also challenged the accuracy of the expert findings and disagreed with the assessment of the facts by the trial court . The first page of the applicant ’s cassation appeal was stamped by ORG ( GPE ) , in which he was detained at the time , confirming that the appeal was sent out on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer also submitted an appeal on points of law with similar arguments . The stamp of the trial court on the first page of the appeal shows that it was received on DATE .

According to the ORG , neither the applicant nor his lawyer applied to ORG to participate in the cassation hearing . However , the case file contains a copy of such a request signed by both the applicant and his lawyer and dated DATE . It has not , however , been stamped by ORG and there is no other acknowledgment of its receipt .

On DATE , in a hearing with the participation of the prosecutor , but in the absence of the applicant or his lawyer , ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It considered that the applicant ’s right to legal defence had not been violated , as his confession of DATE had been excluded from the evidence .


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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He works as a criminal defence lawyer .

NORP In DATE the applicant defended a client in criminal proceedings . After the proceedings had concluded , and when the client had already been imprisoned , the client ’s fiancée transferred the applicant ’s legal fees ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) from her private bank account to the applicant ’s professional account . The subject of the bank transfer read : “ Prof PERSON fees ( client ’s last name ) ” .

In DATE and DATE the GPE public prosecution office conducted investigations into several individuals suspected of having committed fraud on a commercial basis as members of a gang . CARDINAL of the suspects was the aforementioned applicant ’s former client , who again retained the applicant as his defence lawyer . During these investigations , the bank accounts of several people , including the applicant ’s client and the client ’s fiancée , were inspected . The inspection revealed that the client ’s fiancée had received money ( ORG CARDINAL ) which was suspected to have stemmed from illegal activities , and had transferred ORG CARDINAL for legal fees to the applicant ’s bank account .

On the basis of the bank transfer of fees from the fiancée to the applicant in relation to the first set of criminal proceedings , the GPE public prosecution office also contacted the applicant ’s bank . On DATE the public prosecutor asked for a list of all transactions concerning the applicant ’s bank account from DATE until DATE . He asked the bank not to reveal the request to the applicant . He based his request for information on Articles CARDINALa , DATE and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , in conjunction with LAW ( see paragraphs ORG below ) .

On DATE the public prosecutor requested further information and asked the following questions :

“ ( a ) Which other bank accounts , investment accounts or safe deposit boxes at your bank belong to the person in question ?

( b ) What rights of disposal ( Verfügungsberechtigungen ) does the person in question have ?

( c ) Who else has a right of disposal ?

( d ) Do other accounts exist of which the person in question is the beneficiary ?

( e ) If so , what are the current balances on these accounts ?

( f ) If bank accounts have been closed by the person in question , please submit information about the date of closure and the balance at the time of closure , and where the money was transferred after closure .

( g ) Which addresses of the person in question are known to you ?

( h ) Are you aware of any money transfers to or other transactions with foreign countries ? If so , please specify the bank , account and amount of each transfer or transaction .

( i ) Please submit a list of all transactions for all existing or closed accounts from CARDINAL DATE .

( j ) Are there any credit cards connected to any of the accounts ? ”

The bank complied with both requests for information and submitted the information to the public prosecution office . In both instances , the public prosecutor did not order the bank to submit the information , but pointed to the obligations of witnesses set out in the ORG and the possible consequences of noncompliance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The information received was analysed by the police and the public prosecutor , and a list of CARDINAL transactions deemed to be relevant was included in the investigation file as evidence . Therefore , everyone who had access to the case file , such as the lawyers of the coaccused , also had access to the applicant ’s banking information , including the names of his clients who had transferred fees .

On DATE , after several unsuccessful requests , the applicant , as the lawyer of the accused , was granted access to the investigation file . From the case file he learned , for the first time , of the investigative measures concerning his own bank account .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to hand over to him all data received from the bank and destroy all related data at the public prosecution office . In his request the applicant emphasised his role as a criminal defence lawyer , which was known to the acting public prosecutor , and the consequences for his clients , whose names were accessible through the banking information . He further argued that the investigative measures lacked a legal basis .

On CARDINAL DATE the GPE Chief Public Prosecutor refused the applicant ’s request . He stated that there was a suspicion that the money transferred from the client ’s fiancée stemmed from illegal activities . Consequently , it was legitimate for the public prosecutor to investigate whether further money transfers had taken place between the applicant and his client or the client ’s fiancée . Therefore , since the investigative measures were legitimate , the information received had to be kept in the investigation file . ORG further pointed out that there was no legal basis for returning the data or taking the documents out of the investigation file . ORG cited LAW of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as a legal basis for the information requests , since the bank in question was a bank under public law and therefore considered to be an authority .

Subsequently , the file was transferred to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , because the criminal proceedings against the applicant ’s client had started . The applicant therefore asked ORG to return the data .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s application . The court found that the investigation was lawful , that the bank had provided the information voluntarily , that the documents could therefore only be returned to the bank and not to the applicant , and that the prohibition of seizure under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was not applicable , since the information had not been in the applicant ’s possession . Nonetheless , in order to safeguard the clientlawyer privilege , it also decided to separate the documents in question from the general court file and only grant access to them if reasons proving sufficient interest were provided .

The applicant appealed against the decision . He challenged in particular the findings that the bank had acted voluntarily and that there had been sufficient suspicion for such an extensive analysis of his banking transactions . He further reiterated that , owing to his position as a lawyer , there were several safeguards in place concerning the seizure of documents ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , and these should not have been circumvented because his and his clients’ personal information was stored at and by the bank , and not at his office .

On DATE the ORG confirmed the decision of ORG . It found that the decision was proportionate and that the safeguards were not applicable , in particular since the bank could not be considered a person assisting the applicant or a person involved in the professional activities of the applicant under Article CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint , without providing reasons ( case no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .