Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of drugs under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . Those operations led to their criminal conviction for drug dealing .

The facts of each individual criminal case , as submitted by the parties , are summarised below . The applicants disagreed with the Government on the underlying causes and the circumstances leading to the test purchases , and where this is so both versions are given . As regards the factual details of the covert operations , it is common ground that the applicants knowingly procured drugs in the course of the test purchases .

The applicants are brothers . At the time of arrest they were vendors working in a video- and audio - rental kiosk . At the time of lodging their applications they were serving prison sentences in correctional GPE following their criminal conviction in respect of which they lodged these applications .

On an unspecified date ORG ( GPE , the drugs police ) received information from an undisclosed source that the applicants were involved in drug dealing . On that basis the police decided that an undercover policeman , X , would infiltrate the group and carry out test purchases of cannabis from the applicants .

It is undisputed by the parties that X approached PERSON through an acquaintance and asked him whether he could supply him with cannabis . The parties differ as to whether PERSON agreed to do so . According to the Government , which relied on X ’s testimony , PERSON had readily agreed to supply him with cannabis . According to the applicants , he had replied that he did not have any but could ask his dealer who occasionally passed by his kiosk .

The applicants contended that after that conversation X had called PERSON repeatedly to ask if he had cannabis . PERSON thought that X was a drug user , and being a cannabis smoker himself he decided to help him . When the dealer eventually came to the kiosk PERSON asked him to supply cannabis for X as well , and when the dealer agreed the applicant called X back to tell him . He bought the cannabis for X with money borrowed from the kiosk cash till which he refunded after X had paid him back . On that occasion it was PERSON who had passed the parcel to X at his brother ’s request . After that , X had continued to call PERSON regularly . In total PERSON had bought cannabis for X on CARDINAL occasions , all of which had been test purchases .

The official records of the CARDINAL test purchases contain the following account . On DATE undercover policeman PERSON was assigned to carry out the first test purchase of cannabis from the applicants . He was given MONEY ( RUB ) in banknotes that had been photocopied . He met the applicants at the kiosk , they went inside and he purchased QUANTITY of cannabis . PERSON took the money and PERSON handed him a paper bag with the drug inside . He asked the applicants if he could come back for more in future , and they confirmed that he could . Afterwards , he handed the cannabis to the police . The second test purchase took place on DATE , allegedly following a phone call from PERSON telling X that he had obtained the cannabis . After being given RUB CARDINAL that had been photocopied X called PERSON to arrange a meeting , picked him up in town and drove to the kiosk where he purchased QUANTITY of cannabis wrapped in paper . Afterwards , he handed the packet of cannabis to the police . The third test purchase took place on DATE , this time for RUB CARDINAL . X pre - arranged it by telephone , then left the money at the kiosk with another vendor and came back later to get the drugs from PERSON , who gave him QUANTITY of cannabis which X then handed over to the police .

NORP The telephone communications between X and the applicants were not recorded or intercepted .

On DATE the police searched the kiosk and seized QUANTITY of cannabis wrapped in newspaper and a cut - off plastic bottle with paper foil inside , which was allegedly a device for smoking cannabis . The applicants were arrested and charged with procuring large quantities of narcotic drugs , acting in conspiracy , and illegally possessing drugs .

The case was examined at first instance by ORG of Stavropol . The applicants pleaded guilty in part , but claimed that they had committed the crime as a result of police entrapment . They pointed out that there had been no evidence of their prior involvement in drug dealing . They maintained that PERSON had only exceptionally agreed to assist X in acquiring the drugs because he believed that he was a cannabis smoker like himself . As regards PERSON , he had not been directly involved in the transactions with X , although he knew that his brother had occasionally smoked cannabis .

The court cross - examined X , whose identity had been disclosed , and the witnesses , who gave a detailed account of the test purchases . The court also examined the video recordings of the first CARDINAL test purchases .

X testified that he had infiltrated the group in order to verify operational information received by the drugs police concerning the supplying of cannabis . He had approached the applicant at a party asking if it was possible to obtain any , and the applicant had agreed to help . Defence counsel asked whether X had been aware that the law prohibited incitement to commit criminal offences , but the judge rejected the question as irrelevant .

The court also cross - examined S , an operations officer who had been in charge of the undercover operation . He testified that the police had received information from an undisclosed source that the applicants were selling drugs . He testified that the information had not come from X , but refused to provide any details on the grounds that it was classified information . He testified that X had been instructed to infiltrate the group but had not been obliged to disclose his methods of undercover work and had not reported back to his superior about the manner of his communications with the applicants prior to , and between , the test purchases . In particular , he did not know and was not interested in how X had come to an agreement with the applicants about supplying the drugs . He did not know whether the transaction had been initiated by CARDINAL one of the applicants .

On DATE ORG of Stavropol convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced PERSON to DATE and PERSON to DATE imprisonment . The applicants appealed , pleading , in particular , police entrapment and alleging that the results of the test purchases had to be excluded from the body of evidence as unlawfully obtained . They contested the allegation that the police had had information indicating that they had previously sold drugs .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , without expressly addressing the allegation of entrapment , and upheld the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of the Stavropol Region lodged a request for supervisory review of the case on the grounds that the operational - search activity against the applicants had ceased to be lawful after the first test purchase , which had yielded sufficient proof of their criminal activity . The Deputy Prosecutor considered that the police should have instituted criminal proceedings immediately after the episode of DATE and that therefore the second and third episodes constituted entrapment contrary to ORG . Those episodes should therefore be excluded from the grounds of their conviction .

On DATE a judge of ORG dismissed the prosecutor ’s request and refused to reopen the criminal proceedings in the ORG case , having dismissed the arguments concerning entrapment .

On an unidentified date the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE lodged a request for supervisory review of the case on essentially the same grounds .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG granted the request . It found that the first test purchase had been carried out on the basis of operational information that QUANTITY persons , PERSON and PERSON , had been selling cannabis . During the test purchase that information had been confirmed and at the same time the criminal offence had been committed , which was sufficient to bring charges . There had been no need for any further test purchases as these had not been aimed at investigating the chain of supply of drugs . The second and third episodes were therefore to be considered as intentional incitement to commit the drug offences . The evidence relating to those CARDINAL episodes was declared inadmissible and excluded from the grounds of the applicants’ conviction . PERSON sentence was commuted to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , and PERSON sentence remained unchanged .

NORP The applicant is a drug user . He claims to have become a heroin addict in prison where he was serving his first sentence . At the time of his arrest he was unemployed . At the time of lodging his application he was serving his third prison sentence in a correctional colony following his criminal conviction in respect of which he lodged this application .

According to the official version , the drugs police received operational information that the applicant was selling drugs . The Government claimed that the drugs police had been keeping a file on the applicant ’s involvement in drug dealing for DATE prior to the test purchase . On DATE the interception of his mobile phone was authorised by a court . On the basis of that preliminary information , on DATE the police decided to carry out a test purchase of heroin from the applicant . It was carried out by a police informant , “ PERSON ” , whose identity remained undisclosed in the ensuing proceedings . During the test purchase the applicant sold CARDINAL packets of heroin and a syringe with heroin to “ PERSON ” , who paid him RUB CARDINAL .

According to the applicant , he knew “ PERSON ” as a fellow drug addict . On DATE “ PERSON ” called him to tell that he had RUB CARDINAL and was looking to buy heroin with that amount . The applicant told him that his dealer was selling only CARDINAL doses for RUB MONEY , that he had only RUB CARDINAL and was suffering from withdrawal symptoms , and suggested sharing a dose between them . “ PERSON ” called him back later and told him that he had found RUB CARDINAL , and they agreed to share the purchase . “ PERSON brought the money to the applicant ’s flat and the applicant asked him to wait outside to avoid crossing with the dealer . When the dealer brought the drug the applicant paid him with “ PERSON ’s ” cash . He then reimbursed “ PERSON ” RUB CARDINAL and they consumed part of the heroin together . “ PERSON ” took the remaining heroin away with him .

After the test purchase a search was carried out at the applicant ’s flat . No money was found , but the police seized an empty sachet with traces of heroin , a piece of cotton wool soaked in heroin and an empty syringe , also with traces of heroin . The applicant was charged with drug trafficking .

The Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary examined the case at first instance . The applicant denied having been involved in drug dealing . He pleaded guilty to having acquired heroin on behalf of “ PERSON ” but explained that he had only done so because of the arrangement to consume it together , as he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms . He alleged that he had committed the offence as a result of entrapment .

“ PERSON ” was called as a witness and examined during the trial , although his identity was kept secret . He testified that he had called the applicant asking him to supply him with heroin and that he had purchased CARDINAL sachets of the drug at the applicant ’s flat . When cross - examined , “ PERSON ” refused to answer the following questions : whether he knew the applicant ; whether he knew the applicant ’s heroin dealer ; whether he knew that the dealer was coming after he had left the money with the applicant ; whether it was his initiative to conduct a test purchase from the applicant ; whether he had previously bought drugs from the applicant ; and whether he had previously been arrested by the drugs police .

On CARDINAL DATE the first - instance court found the applicant guilty of selling drugs and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , having found him to be a serial offender . In its judgment the court relied , among other evidence , on the transcripts of the applicant ’s intercepted telephone calls which had taken place between him and “ PERSON ” during the transaction on DATE . It noted that the audio recording had confirmed receipt of the money and that the applicant had given drugs to the informant .

The applicant appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that he had been convicted of an offence committed as a result of police entrapment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , upholding , in substance , the first - instance judgment . At the same time it reclassified the offence as attempted sale , having reduced the sentence to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG examined a request by the applicant for supervisory review and decided that the applicant was not a serial offender . It reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment and upheld the remainder of the earlier judicial decisions .

The applicant is a drug user . At the time of her arrest she was unemployed . At the time of lodging her application she was serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony following her criminal conviction in respect of which she lodged this application .

On TIME the drugs police conducted CARDINAL test purchases whereby the applicant first procured QUANTITY of cannabis for police informant “ LOC and CARDINAL a half hours later procured QUANTITY of cannabis for an undercover police officer , “ PERSON ” . The parties differ as to the reasons for ordering the test purchases and as to the circumstances in which the applicant had agreed to procure the drugs . According to the Government , the drugs police had been in possession of operational information from an undisclosed but reliable source that the applicant was trafficking in cannabis . According to the applicant , the police had had no preliminary information about her alleged criminal activity and had ordered the test purchase without a valid reason . She claimed that she had procured drugs for the undercover agents as a result of entrapment .

On the basis of the test purchases the applicant was charged with selling drugs .

The Sovetskiy District Court of GPE examined the case at first instance . At the trial the policemen and the witnesses testified regarding the test purchases . They all pointed out that during the test purchase the applicant had been in a state of narcotic intoxication . A forensic report also confirmed that at the time of arrest the applicant had been under the influence of opiates .

The court asked the prosecutor if the investigating authorities had had any classified information incriminating the applicant . The prosecutor replied that all confidential material relating to the conduct of the test purchase had been disclosed . However , when the court subsequently examined the police officers they testified that , prior to the test purchase , the police had received operational information that the applicant was selling cannabis at RUB CARDINAL per box , but they could not name the source or expand on that information at the hearing because the information remained confidential .

“ LOC and “ PERSON ” were called as witnesses and were examined during the trial , although their identity was kept secret .

NORP “ PERSON ” testified that he had met the applicant in DATE and that she had immediately offered to purchase cannabis for him . He had called her back in DATE and asked her to supply him with cannabis . She had sold him CARDINAL sachets for RUB CARDINAL during the test purchase , and he had paid her with banknotes marked with a UV marker pen . He denied having been acquainted with “ LOC and also denied the involvement of any intermediary between himself and the applicant .

“ NORP ” testified that he was an occasional cannabis smoker and that he had collaborated with the drugs police . He had met the applicant in DATE and she had asked him if he was taking drugs . He stated that the applicant had offered to buy him drugs but could not remember in what circumstances . He had then reported on her to the drugs police , who had decided to carry out a test purchase in which he would act as a buyer . The transaction had taken place inside the entrance to a block of flats , and the applicant had handed him CARDINAL sachets of cannabis . When cross - examined , he denied having consumed drugs with the applicant during the test purchase .

The applicant alleged that she was a cannabis smoker but had never been involved in drug dealing . She pleaded guilty to having acquired cannabis on behalf of “ NORP ” but explained that she had only done so exceptionally and as result of entrapment . She testified that she had met “ PERSON when she was renting a room in his flat . She knew that he was a drug user and they had once smoked cannabis together . On CARDINAL occasion he had told her that he wanted to overcome his addiction to strong drugs and needed some “ weed ” to ease the withdrawal pains . The applicant could see that he was suffering and out of compassion had agreed to buy cannabis for him from her dealer . On DATE she had met “ PERSON to take the money before going to the dealer , and he had then introduced her to “ PERSON ” , who had also asked for cannabis and complained of withdrawal symptoms . The applicant replied that she could find cannabis for “ LOC , but not for “ PERSON ” . Later on DATE she had met “ LOC to give him the cannabis that she had purchased for him . They had entered a block of flats so that she could pass it over to him and then “ LOC had produced a syringe of heroin and offered it to the applicant . She had accepted , although she was not a heroin user , and “ LOC had injected her with it . He had then told her to wait for “ PERSON ” and to pass part of the cannabis to him . Feeling disorientated from the effects of the drug , she had done as she was told and when “ PERSON ” came she had passed him the cannabis and then been arrested .

On DATE the first - instance court found the applicant guilty of selling drugs and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The applicant appealed , inter alia , on the grounds that she had committed the offence as a result of police entrapment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , having found , in particular , that there had been sufficient evidence that the applicant had procured drugs on TIME CARDINAL to DATE . It noted that the police officers had testified that they had received preliminary information that the applicant had been selling drugs . It also found that the police had acted in accordance with the law and therefore rejected the defence of entrapment . It upheld the first - instance judgment .

The applicant is a drug user . At the time of his arrest he was working for his father ’s company . At the time of lodging his application he was serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony following his criminal conviction in respect of which he lodged this application .

On an unspecified date the NORP regional office of the drugs police received information from an undisclosed source that the applicant was involved in drug dealing . On that basis the police carried out a test purchase of MDMA pills , commonly known as “ ecstasy ” , from the applicant . The test purchase was carried out by an undercover police officer acting under the pseudonym of “ NORP ” .

According to the Government , “ Azamatov ” had infiltrated a group of people close to the applicant , all of whom were dealing in and/or using drugs , pretending that he was a drug user himself . The first time he met the applicant and his acquaintance , PERSON , they had told him that they were PERSON users and that they could help if he wanted to buy some , the price of CARDINAL MDMA pill being RUB CARDINAL . They gave him their cell phone numbers .

According to the applicant , he was approached by an acquaintance , “ ORG ” , with a request to buy some “ ecstasy ” for him . He knew that Ms S had a contact , a drug dealer , and he asked her to help him purchase CARDINAL MDMA pills for his friend . “ ORG ” picked him up in a car , with another person , “ NORP ” , who was supposedly in need of the drug . They then met PERSON and she took them to a night club where she met the dealer and purchased CARDINAL pills for “ NORP ” with the latter ’s money ( RUB CARDINAL ) .

The official records of the CARDINAL test purchases contain the following account . On DATE the police officer “ NORP ” was assigned to carry out the first test purchase of the MDMA pills from the applicant . “ Azamatov ” was given RUB CARDINAL . The banknote numbers had been noted , but they were not otherwise marked or photocopied . He met the applicant and PERSON at TIME DATE , handed the applicant RUB CARDINAL and they drove together to a night club where PERSON left them for TIME and returned with a packet containing four pills . “ NORP ” came back to the police station and handed in the pills . It was later established by an expert that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL pills contained an active ORG ingredient , while the other CARDINAL did not contain any narcotic substances .

The telephone communications between “ NORP ” , the applicant and PERSON prior to the test purchase were not recorded or intercepted , but an audio recording was made in the course of the transaction , starting at TIME on DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG authorised the tapping of the applicant ’s and PERSON telephones for DATE . Several recordings were made , the transcripts of which were appended to the case file , but they were not used as evidence during the trial . Transcripts made available to the ORG included CARDINAL conversations during which the applicant spoke about drugs , in jargon . It transpires from those conversations that he and his correspondents lived in constant search of drugs , shared information about their sources and purchased them together from whatever dealer they could find .

On DATE “ NORP ” called the applicant and asked him to purchase drugs for him . The applicant said that he could not help him , but they agreed to meet . When they met the applicant was arrested and charged with procuring large quantities of narcotic drugs on DATE in conspiracy with PERSON

The case was examined at first instance by ORG of GPE . The applicant and PERSON pleaded guilty in part but claimed that the crime they had committed was the result of police entrapment . The applicant pointed out , in particular , that there was no evidence of his prior involvement in drug dealing . He maintained that he had only agreed to assist “ GPE in acquiring drugs because he had believed that he was an occasional “ ecstasy ” user , like himself . He had not intended to purchase it for “ NORP ” , but had ended up doing so because of “ ORG ’s ” manipulation .

The court cross - examined “ NORP ” under a procedure whereby his identity was concealed from the participants in the proceedings , except the judge . He testified that his infiltration and the covert operation had been ordered because of the information about the applicant and PERSON received by the police , but he refused to name the source of that information . He stated that the applicant and PERSON had told him that they could sell him MDMA pills , but he had never bought any from them prior to the test purchase and had never seen either of them selling drugs to anyone . The court also cross - examined another police officer who had taken part in the test purchase and the witnesses in the investigation who had given details of the test purchase . The court also examined extracts of the recordings made during the test purchases , which were TIME .

Ms S. testified at the trial that the applicant had called her at QUANTITY on DATE and asked her to find some drugs for his friend , who was “ unwell ” . She had refused to begin with , but in the end he had persuaded her to help . She had called her dealer and found out that he had MDMA pills available . She had called the applicant back and confirmed that they could go and get the pills , and they had driven together to the night club to meet up with the dealer . There had been CARDINAL people in the car : the applicant , herself , “ NORP ” and “ GPE . Before she left the car the applicant had given her RUB CARDINAL and she had purchased the packet of CARDINAL pills with that money . She had then returned to the car and handed the packet to “ NORP ” .

The applicant ’s defence counsel referred in oral pleadings to the guidelines adopted on DATE by ORG of GPE on jurisprudence in criminal cases involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic , strong or toxic substances . He claimed , in particular , that it had not been established that the applicant had intended to engage in drug trafficking prior to being contacted by the undercover agent , or that he had carried out any preparatory steps to the commission of the offence .

On DATE the ORG of LOC convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed . He reiterated his plea of entrapment and claimed , inter alia , that the police had no information suggesting that he had previously sold drugs . He also complained that the authorities had not made any attempts to find and question “ ORG ” , who had played a key role in the test purchase and could have cast light on the role of the police in the offence he had committed . He claimed that the first - instance court had failed to follow the guidelines adopted by ORG of GPE on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . It did not address the plea of entrapment , having limited itself to the finding that the applicant ’s conviction had been lawful and well founded . It also noted that the undercover operation had been based on preliminary information indicating that the applicant was involved in drug dealing .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Syria);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

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

The applicant , ORG , is a stateless NORP . It appears that he was born in GPE in DATE . Currently he lives in GPE .

The applicant entered GPE with his stepmother and CARDINAL siblings in DATE , when he was DATE . He was granted asylum in DATE , DATE his father entered GPE . The latter was granted a residence permit in DATE . The applicant ’s mother , CARDINAL - siblings and his paternal uncles live in GPE .

It appears that in DATE , when the applicant was DATE , he returned to GPE for DATE and worked as a painter . According to ORG , he stayed in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , but that appears to be disputed by the applicant .

He returned to GPE for DATE in DATE .

NORP In GPE , the applicant married and divorced twice . From each marriage he had a child , a son born in DATE and a daughter born in DATE .

The applicant has a criminal record . Among other things , in DATE he was convicted of assault , for which he was given a suspended sentence of CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . In DATE he was convicted of making threats against witnesses and possession of a weapon , for which he was given a suspended sentenced of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . In DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment for theft and human trafficking .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with drugs offences , and by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ( PERSON , henceforth “ the High Court ” ) convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of drugs offences relating to QUANTITY of heroin and cocaine , committed throughout DATE . ORG considered that the applicant had a leading role and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . A profit of MONEY ( ORG ) ( equal to MONEY ( ORG ) ) was confiscated . In addition , he was expelled from GPE with a ban on returning .

When issuing the expulsion order , ORG had regard , inter alia , to an opinion which had been obtained from ORG ) . The latter had held an interview with the applicant about his personal situation and ties to GPE and GPE , which included information about schooling , language skills , work , family etc . Before ORG the applicant stated that he speaks and understands LANGUAGE . He does not read or write LANGUAGE . He also stated that he speaks , reads and writes NORP well . However , an interpreter was used in connection with the interview regarding his personal circumstances which was held on DATE . ORG also considered the applicant ’s submission that he feared being returned to GPE because he had not sorted out the issue of compulsory military service and because he feared being punished by the NORP authorities if they found out that he had been sentenced for drugs offences in GPE . ORG referred to a consultation response of DATE from ORG , which included an expert opinion of DATE obtained by a named professor and former dean at ORG , concerning the principle of ne bis in idem set out in LAW . That provision stated that no NORP or foreigner will be charged in GPE with an offence on NORP territory , if he has been convicted and has served his sentence abroad or if the punishment has lapsed owing to the limitation legislation of the relevant country or if he has been pardoned . According to LAW , a judgment delivered abroad did not prevent prosecution for an offence falling under LAW , which applied to any NORP or foreign national who breached the law or committed a serious offence outside NORP territory harming national security or who forged Government stamps or forged or counterfeited NORP or foreign bank notes or debt instruments , which were lawful means of payment or in general circulation in GPE .

The High Court did not find that an expulsion order would contravene LAW . It stated as follows :

“ When balancing the considerations mentioned in section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of LAW and the serious drugs offences committed by the applicant in the form of organizing the dealing in hard drugs of which the applicant has been found guilty , ORG takes into account on the one hand that the applicant must be deemed poorly integrated in NORP society : he never completed lower secondary school and has not at all participated in the labour market . [ The applicant ] has also previously been convicted of assault , making threats against witnesses , human trafficking and theft . ORG further emphasizes that [ the applicant ] speaks LANGUAGE and has retained certain ties with GPE , where his mother , CARDINAL - siblings and other family members are living , and [ the applicant ] has also stayed in GPE several times , including a period of DATE when he worked as a painter .

Factors weighing against expulsion are that [ the applicant ] entered GPE at DATE and has now lawfully resided in GPE for DATE and has thus had DATE and schooling here . It must also be taken into account that [ the applicant ] is married to and cohabits with a NORP national , a former stateless NORP , with whom he has a daughter of DATE . In addition , [ the applicant ] has been married by an NORP ceremony to another woman of NORP origin living in GPE , now a NORP national , with whom he has a son of DATE . [ The applicant ] has visiting rights to his son , but in reality has only sporadic contact with his son .

In view of the gravity of the offences committed and the sentence imposed , the High Court finds on an overall assessment that none of the considerations mentioned in section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW constitutes a decisive argument against expulsion , nor can expulsion of [ the applicant ] be considered contrary to the considerations of proportionality following from LAW ... ”

On appeal , on DATE , the judgment was upheld by ORG ( Højesteret ) , referring to the reasoning by ORG .

NORP In DATE , by virtue of LAW , and since the applicant was nearing the end of his sentence , the police requested the relevant immigration authorities to determine whether , and in the affirmative , to which country the applicant could be returned . The applicant was interviewed and anew he objected to the expulsion . He maintained , inter alia , that although originally he had stated that he was born in GPE , where he was also registered , in reality he was born in GPE . The applicant did not wish to return to GPE , as he did not wish to perform his military service there . He also feared being returned to GPE due to his father ’s political past there . Moreover , he was in conflict with a NORP family , because he had had an affair with their daughter in DATE and she had subsequently falsely accused him of rape . Finally , he was afraid of being sentenced again in GPE for the drugs crime he had committed in GPE . He added that in DATE he had found a new girlfriend , who visited him in prison DATE . The applicant said that he would agree to being sent to GPE , where he had an aunt . He had CARDINAL siblings in GPE and CARDINAL in GPE .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( ORG ) , the former ORG , found that the applicant could be expelled to either GPE or GPE . It took into account that the applicant had maintained all along that he was born in GPE , that in the public register in GPE he was recorded as a NORP from GPE in GPE , and that he had relied on his fear of being called up for military service there . The fact that , during an interview on DATE , he had stated that he was born in GPE and produced a copy of a birth certificate , could not lead to another assessment . ORG did not find the applicant ’s story about the girl in GPE credible . It noted that he had not provided any information in this respect until the interview held on DATE , and found it unlikely that the girl ’s family would persecute him since allegedly he had ended the relationship in DATE . In addition it found that a related document produced by the applicant , allegedly issued by the NORP authorities , was not authentic . It did not find credible either the applicant ’s allegation that he could not return to GPE because of his father ’s political activities , notably since the applicant could not give any details about those activities . Finally , ORG did not find that the fact that the applicant had not performed compulsory military service in GPE or that he had been convicted for a drugs offence in GPE could bar his expulsion . With regard to the latter , it referred to the consultation response from ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( PERSON ) , before which he was represented by a lawyer , heard in person and able to submit observations . By decision of DATE , ORG upheld ORG decision , but found that the applicant could be expelled only to GPE , the country where he had lived DATE and which he had visited from DATE and again in DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , in accordance with the provisions of section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) , the applicant had instituted proceedings before ORG in ORG ( ORG ) claiming that there had been material changes in his circumstances , for which reason he requested the court to review the expulsion order . The applicant relied on LAW and referred in particular to his CARDINAL children in GPE and to his new girlfriend , who had a child from a previous relationship , born in DATE . Before ORG the latter stated that she would follow the applicant to GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request as it did not find that his situation had changed to such an extent that there was any reason to revoke the expulsion order . Upon appeal , the applicant submitted that he had married his girlfriend according to NORP tradition , that she was expecting their child , and that she no longer wanted to follow him to GPE .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision and stated :

“ For the reasons stated by ORG and because the [ applicant ’s ] present girlfriend , with whom he is married by an NORP ceremony , no longer wants to accompany him to GPE [ even though ] she has recently become pregnant and is expecting the [ applicant ’s ] child , the outcome can not be different . In this regard ORG has emphasised that the parties’ relationship commenced after ORG judgment of DATE , for which reason the parties are considered not to have such justified expectations of being able to live together in GPE that the expulsion can be revoked . ”

Leave to appeal to ORG was refused on DATE .

The applicant was deported to GPE on DATE . According to a report procured by the NORP police , the applicant ’s father and uncle had travelled to GPE beforehand to meet the applicant upon arrival . QUANTITY police officers accompanied the applicant on the plane . They submitted the applicant ’s travel documents and a document translated into LANGUAGE , stating that the applicant had fully served his sentence in GPE , to the security staff on board and the immigration authorities at the airport in GPE .

Before being deported , on DATE , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG and requested the application of an interim measure pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of ORG .

Since he only relied on LAW and invoked his separation from his CARDINAL children , his new wife , her child from a previous marriage , and their future child , his request for a Rule CARDINAL indication was not submitted to the President for a decision , of which fact he and his representative were informed in a letter from ORG DATE .

ORG , the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that upon arrival at GPE airport , the applicant had allegedly been detained and placed in different prisons , interrogated , notably about his conviction in GPE , whether he was addicted to drugs and whether there were persons involved in GPE . During this time , the applicant had regularly been subjected to torture .

On DATE , he was allegedly released in order to commence CARDINAL months’ military service in GPE , but he was exempted after DATE because he suffered from heart problems .

Allegedly , he was also summoned to appear before the court in GPE to explain about his conviction in GPE . It appears that that case has been discontinued .

The applicant ’s wife and their child went to GPE to visit him .

On DATE , the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had fled GPE and entered GPE , where he was detained .

On DATE , the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had entered GPE and requested asylum there .

The applicant was granted asylum in GPE some time during DATE .


Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE a gathering was held in GPE on the anniversary of the arrest of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( ORG ) , an illegal armed organisation . The protesters gathered in front of the building of the ORG branch of ORG ( PERSON ) ( ORG ) , where a press statement was read out . Being a member of the ORG , the applicant participated in the gathering .

Subsequently , clashes occurred between police officers and some demonstrators who were attempting to block the traffic . According to police reports , QUANTITY police officers were injured as a result of objects thrown from the ORG building . The police then entered the ORG building and arrested CARDINAL people , including the applicant . DATE , the applicant was detained on remand .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor charged the applicant and CARDINAL other people with membership of the ORG under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The prosecutor alleged that the accused had participated in the public gathering in question in response to calls made by the ORG and had resisted the police officers , and that they had therefore acted on behalf of the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . ORG ) . The assize court did not find it established that the applicant had attended the reading out of the press statement in response to calls made by the ORG or that she had injured any police officers . It therefore concluded that the applicant could not be convicted of membership of the ORG or resistance to the police . The court nonetheless considered that on DATE the applicant had gone to the ORG building with a view to disseminating propaganda in support of the ORG and that she should therefore be convicted under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

Taking into account the applicant ’s good behaviour during the trial and the absence of any previous criminal record , the court suspended the pronouncement of her conviction on condition that she did not commit another intentional offence for DATE , under LAW ( hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması ) .

On DATE the court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant against the above - mentioned decision . The final decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


CASE OF DUŠKO IVANOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

On DATE the applicant was apprehended by the police on a location in GPE and searched . As indicated in the search record , which the applicant duly signed , the search was carried out without a court warrant and in the absence of witnesses , as provided for in sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ the LAW ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The police confiscated CARDINAL keys and a mobile phone from him . The search was completed at TIME .

NORP On that date , an investigating judge of ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) issued CARDINAL separate search warrants ( Kri.br.CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON ) concerning CARDINAL apartments ( CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the building in which the applicant lived ) and other LOC ( наредба за претрес на дом и други простории ) owned by the applicant ’s father . The search warrants were issued on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had been involved in drug trafficking .

Both apartments and the accompanying cellars were searched DATE in the presence of the applicant ’s father and CARDINAL neighbours , who acted as witnesses . CARDINAL packages containing an unknown substance were found . An authorised police officer , the neighbours , as well as the applicant ’s father , who was specified in the search records as the occupier of the LOC , signed the search records without any objection . The searches were completed at TIME . and TIME . At the request of those attending the search , the following note was included in the search record concerning apartment no . CARDINAL :

“ The packages were found in the cellar belonging to apartment no . CARDINAL of the same building , which was opened with a key confiscated during the personal search of [ the applicant ] .... ”

As indicated in that search record , a certificate of confiscation of property ( “ the certificate ” ) was issued concerning the CARDINAL packages found in the cellar . It stated that the packages had been confiscated in relation to a crime punishable under LAW ( drug trafficking ) . The applicant had not been present in the cellars while those were being searched but was brought to the LOC afterwards ( see § QUANTITY below ) . He signed the certificate of confiscation as a person from whom the packages had been confiscated .

On DATE ORG at ORG ( “ the Bureau ” , PERSON за криминалистичка техника ) carried out an expert examination of the padlock which had secured cellar no.CARDINAL and CARDINAL keys that had been confiscated from the applicant . According to the expert report of that date ( no . MONEY ) , the locking system of the padlock had been damaged and it could be opened with any object , including all keys confiscated from the applicant .

In another expert report ( X-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of that date , the ORG confirmed that CARDINAL packages found in cellar no.CARDINAL contained QUANTITY of heroin . As to the remaining QUANTITY found in the CARDINAL other packages , the report stated that they contained CARDINAL substances that were often mixed with heroin . That was confirmed by an additional expert report of the ORG dated DATE ( no . X-CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . As indicated in the report X-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , each of CARDINAL packages found in the cellar contained between ORG and ORG . The dimensions of the largest package were QUANTITY .

A third expert report of the ORG ( SK-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of DATE that concerned a fingerprint found on CARDINAL of the packages confiscated in cellar PERSON stated :

" The fingerprints found were entered into the system of automatic search of fingerprints ... it was determined , after verification of the list of suspected candidates , that [ the fingerprints ] corresponded to ( the applicant ’s ) right middle finger ... "

On DATE , ORG lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor accusing the applicant of drug trafficking . In support , it submitted the evidence described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and a number of photographs .

On DATE an investigating judge of the trial court examined the applicant in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant remained silent . He confirmed , however , that he had signed the record of his personal search and CARDINAL certificates of confiscation of property . The investigating judge opened an investigation against the applicant and ordered his pre - trial detention for DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment with the trial court charging the applicant with having been in possession of and offering for sale CARDINAL packages containing QUANTITY ( the weight was specified to QUANTITY later at the trial ) of heroin and QUANTITY of other prohibited substances , which had been found in the cellar of the building in which he had lived .

At a hearing held on DATE , the trial court examined the applicant , who denied any connection with the drugs found in the cellar . As to the cellar , he submitted that it belonged to a third party , whom he did not know . He further stated that after he had been arrested , he had been brought with a police car in front of the building in which he had lived . He had waited in the car for TIME before the police had brought him to the cellar . He submitted that there had been many people ( мешаница ) there , including QUANTITY police inspectors who had asked him to hold the packages in his hands in order to photograph him . The applicant also stated :

“ They forced me to touch the drugs ; I do n’t remember what the packages looked like and how many there were . At that point , maybe I touched ( the drugs ) , I do n’t remember . Then they photographed me ; I refused [ to cooperate ] the whole time . My father was also present . Then , they brought me to the police ( station ) where they again forced me to take the [ package of ] drugs , to hold it in my hands in order to take photographs ... Then , they started beating me and jumping over handcuffs ( put ) on my hands in order to [ make me ] touch the drugs . Then , they took my fingerprints . I was again physically ill - treated . They stopped when my lawyer arrived ... ”

As regards the alleged ill - treatment by the police , he stated that he had neither asked for medical assistance nor had he informed the investigating judge due to fear of further ill - treatment by the police . He had not seen how and what key had been used to open the door of the cellar because he had been , at that time , in the police car . He further stated that he had signed the search records in the presence of a police officer and CARDINAL witnesses . He had voluntarily signed the confiscation records regarding the keys found in his possession . As regards the certificate of confiscation concerning the drugs he stated :

“ ... I most probably signed it when they ( police officers ) gave me CARDINAL sheets of paper to sign ... ”

The applicant ’s lawyer requested that the court examine the applicant ’s father regarding the place where the drugs had been found and title to the apartment . In a statement , the applicant ’s father confirmed that the police had shown him CARDINAL search warrants and that the search had been carried out in his presence and that of CARDINAL neighbours . He also stated :

“ ... I use other cellars in the building , namely CARDINAL small cellars that I have constructed and another one which belongs to ... When they did not find anything ( in his cellars ) , a policeman ... entered cellar no.CARDINAL , which is currently used by the sister of ORG , who owns the apartment and the cellar . After some time , policemen opened the padlock with the keys confiscated from [ the applicant ] ... After TIME , a policeman called me and said that he had found something in the cellar ’s ventilation shaft ... I saw a plastic bag . After he had taken the bags out , I noticed that there were CARDINAL bags . He put them on a metal sheet . Before doing so , he called the witnesses , namely the QUANTITY neighbours , who confirmed what they were looking at . They called my son PERSON . When he arrived , [ the police officer ] told him to stand next to the metal sheet in order for him to be photographed . Actually , he pushed him against the metal sheet and then [ the applicant ] , in order not to fall down , touched the metal sheet with his hands . Thus , he touched the packages . They photographed him with the packages and took him away again . Then they brought the dog . Then we went upstairs to the apartment . [ The police officer ] forced me to sign the record that the packages had been found in cellar no.CARDINAL , which I did . That meant that they did not find anything in my place , but in the [ cellar belonging to ] apartment no.CARDINAL ... ”

As indicated in the record , the applicant ’s father reiterated that cellar no.CARDINAL had been opened with a key found in the applicant ’s possession , which belonged to another padlock . He also stated :

“ I want to say that CARDINAL keys of ours ( the applicant ’s and his ) fitted in that padlock . [ The police officer ] actually opened ( the padlock ) with CARDINAL of my keys and found out that CARDINAL of the keys that PERSON had fitted in the padlock . [ They ] were a pair , of which I had CARDINAL and PERSON had the other . ”

The applicant ’s father also stated that the police officer had not been wearing gloves when he had taken the packages out . He had put gloves on later .

NORP In his concluding remarks made at the trial , the applicant ’s lawyer objected that no search warrants had been issued regarding the personal search of the applicant and the search of cellar no.CARDINAL . In the absence of any eyewitnesses , there had been no direct evidence that would link the applicant with the drugs , which had been hidden in a cellar that had belonged to a third party and could have been opened with any key . He also argued that the applicant ’s fingerprint had been secured in the absence of an expert and that the police had sought an expert examination ex post facto . He maintained that expert report PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been unclear and imprecise because it had contained no information as to the manner and circumstances under which that fingerprint had been secured . Furthermore , it would have been impossible for the applicant to manipulate the packages with CARDINAL finger . He further argued that no fingerprints had been found on the padlock and the cellar where the drugs had been found .

He also challenged the expert examination of the substance found in the packages , arguing that the latter had been too small to contain compacted material in the quantity indicated in the expert report ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In this connection he argued that it had not been established the place and person who had determined the quantity of the substance . He also submitted that the expert examinations had been carried out in his absence . Furthermore , he challenged whether the substance found had been pure heroin . In this connection he also stated :

“ I think that the problem [ arising from ] the practice that the prosecuting body also carries out expert examinations means that the evidence [ obtained thereby ] is not impartial . ”

On DATE the trial court convicted the applicant , who had a previous criminal record ( suspended prison sentence for an act of violence ) , of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL - and - a - half years’ imprisonment . The court established that he had stored , with the aim of offering for sale , the CARDINAL packages containing QUANTITY of heroin found in cellar no.CARDINAL . The court held inter alia :

" Cellar no.CARDINAL where the drugs were found had been locked with a padlock that could be open with any keys besides the original ones .

The court established these facts on the basis of admitted written evidence ... The expert examinations of [ the ORG ] confirmed that the substance found in the compacted packages was QUANTITY heroin . The expert examination confirmed that the fingerprint , which had been found and secured during the on - site examination , corresponded to the accused ’s right middle finger ...

The court examined the arguments presented by the defense .... , but it finds that they are unsubstantiated because the court established ... that the written evidence , notably the record concerning the search of home and other LOC had been drawn up in lawful procedure in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses and on the basis of a search warrant issued earlier . The attending witnesses are neighbours who were present there by accident and whom [ the applicant ’s father ] knew . The court established that the accused had signed the certificate for confiscated property without any qualification . He did not contest his signature .

The court examined the arguments of [ the applicant ’s lawyer ] that there were no witnesses to corroborate that the accused had hidden the drugs in order to offer it for sale and that the accused could not be brought in connection with the drugs hidden in a cellar that did not belong to him , but ( the court ) dismissed those arguments on the basis of a written evidence , notably the ( fingerprint ) expert opinion by [ the ORG ] , which confirmed that the fingerprint corresponded to the [ applicant ’s ] middle finger . Accordingly it is irrelevant that the drugs were found in the cellar belonging to a third person .

The court examined the statement produced by [ the applicant ’s father ] according to which the police officers had pushed his son against the metal sheet where drugs had been put and that , in order not to fall down , he had touched ( the packages ) but it gave no weight because the responsible police officers acted in compliance with their official duty and after they had found the drugs they photographed him next to ( the packages ) . There was no reason for them to push the accused or to secure evidence with the use of force . The father ’s statement was biased because it concerns his son and it is understandable that he wants to help [ the applicant ] avoid criminal liability ... ”

NORP In an appeal of DATE , the public prosecutor complained that the sentence given to the applicant had been too lenient .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the trial court ’s judgment , arguing that his conviction had been based on inadmissible evidence , namely there had been no court warrant authorising the search of cellar no.CARDINAL and the expert examinations of the substance and the fingerprint found on CARDINAL of the packages in that cellar . He reiterated his complaints regarding the quality and reliability of the fingerprint expert evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In this connection he complained about the trial court ’s failure to examine the police officers who had secured his fingerprint in his absence , as well as the experts who had drawn up report SК-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and requested that they be examined . He further argued that the trial court could not have validly based its judgment on those expert examinations since they had been carried out by the Bureau , a body that operated within ORG , which had set in motion the criminal proceedings against him . Accordingly , the examinations had been biased . He also sought to have alternative expert examinations conducted . That concerned both the fingerprint expert evidence , which according to him , had been the sole evidence linking him with the drugs , as well as the expert examination of the substance . As to the latter examination , he reiterated his complaints raised in the concluding remarks ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant also requested that the court examines the neighbours ( providing their names and addresses ) who had attended the search regarding his allegations that his fingerprint found on CARDINAL of the packages had been the result of an argument which he had had in the cellar with the police after he had refused to comply with their order to touch the packages .

At a public session held on DATE in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , ORG dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court ’s judgment . It held that :

" ... the evidence admitted at the trial on which the judgment was based do not contain such deficiencies so as to be regarded unlawful evidence that can not serve as a legal basis for the judgment , within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act .

As evident from the case - file , the search of the accused ’s home and other accompanying LOC ... and the personal search of the accused were carried out in accordance with the ( relevant ) statutory provisions ...

The search of the home and other LOC was carried out by competent officials on the basis of a written warrant by the investigating judge ... in the presence of CARDINAL adult citizens , as witnesses and the occupier of the premises-[the applicant ’s ] father . Search records were drawn up and duly signed by the competent official , the occupier and the attending witnesses , in accordance with sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . The personal search of the accused was carried out without a court warrant and in the absence of witnesses , but it was done by competent officials on account of a reasonable suspicion ... in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . Accordingly , the search records are a valid ground on which the court judgment was based .

The court examined the complaint ... concerning the lack of an order by the investigating judge for the expert examinations carried out by [ the ORG ] ... regarding the nature and composition of the substance and the origin of the fingerprint evidence ; however , the ORG has competence to request expert examinations ...

... On the basis of admitted evidence , especially that the accused was in possession of the keys from the door of the cellar ; [ the applicant ’s ] fingerprint found on one of the packages containing drugs and the certificate for confiscated property signed by the accused , the trial court had undoubtedly established [ the applicant ’s ] identity as the perpetrator of the criminal offence ...

The court examined the complaint regarding the quantity and composition of the drugs , but it dismissed it finding that the trial court had established [ the quantity of the drugs ] , on the basis of the expert opinion by [ the ORG ] , which applied ( it gave a description of the used methodology ) .

The court dismissed the complaint regarding the objectivity of the expert opinions of [ the ORG ] , since it was a department that was founded and operated within ORG , as a ORG body , which had been authorised to carry out expert examinations , as specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ... ( furthermore , the expert reports ) ... had been based on scientific methods , which enable valid results ... on the basis of the case - file , it can be established that after the competent officials had discovered the criminal offense , ( they ) secured evidence which had been transmitted to [ the ORG ] whose experts had determined [ the applicant ’s ] identity applying the system of automatic search of fingerprints .

The court considered the complaint regarding the examination of [ the neighbours ] as witnesses ... but it dismissed it because ... [ the neighbours ] had signed the search records without any objection , which means , for all practical purposes , that they had confirmed [ the record ’s ] veracity regarding the search . Accordingly , it is not necessary for them to be examined ... "

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for extraordinary review of a final judgment ( барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна пресуда ) , arguing that there had been no direct evidence corroborating his guilt . In this connection he reiterated his complaints that cellar no.CARDINAL had been searched without a court order ; that the trial court should have summoned the experts and police officers regarding his fingerprint ; and that ORG had wrongly found that their examination and the examination of the neighbours would have been irrelevant . In this connection , the applicant ’s lawyer stated that :

“ ... the ( police ) officers present in cellar ( no.CARDINAL ) forced [ the applicant ] to touch the packages in order to confirm whether they [ contained ] compacted [ material ] . [ The applicant ] refused to comply with the ORG order to touch the packages and due to the mass of people pushing each other ( поради настаната мешаница и турканица ) , he was again taken to the police station . The same method of treating [ the applicant ] continued in the police station , where he was forced to touch the packages in order to obtain his fingerprint [ on them ] ... ”

He further reiterated his concerns regarding the quality and impartiality of the expert examinations carried out by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) and sought alternative expert examinations of the fingerprint and heroin found .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application and confirmed the lower courts’ judgments . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :

" ... the evidence admitted at the trial on which the judgment was based do not contain such deficiencies so as to be regarded unlawful evidence that can not serve as a legal basis for the judgment , within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . The lower courts correctly established that the search of the accused ’s home and other accompanying LOC ... and the personal search of the accused had been carried out in accordance with the ( relevant ) statutory provisions ... The search of the home and other LOC , as evident from the admitted written evidence , was carried out , according to this court , by competent officials on the basis of a written warrant by the investigating judge ... in the presence of CARDINAL adult citizens , as witnesses and the occupier of the premises-[the applicant ’s ] father . Search records were drawn up and duly signed by the competent official , the occupier and the attending witnesses , which implies that sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act had been respected .

It is true that the personal search of the accused was carried out without a court warrant and in the absence of witnesses , but the lower courts correctly held that such measures had been taken by competent officials on account of a reasonable suspicion ... in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . Accordingly , the search records are a valid ground on which the court judgment could be based .

ORG examined the complaint ... concerning the lack of an order by the investigating judge for the expert examinations carried out by [ the GPE ] ... regarding the nature and composition of the substance and the origin of the fingerprint evidence , but it dismissed them as unsubstantiated . The court had decided in compliance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ... [ The court ] can not accept the allegation raised in the extraordinary review request regarding the objectivity of the expert opinions of [ the ORG ] , since it was a department that was founded and operated within ORG , as a ORG body , which could be requested to carry out expert examinations , as specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ...

ORG considers that in the ordinary proceedings the trial court decided in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the LAW . In establishing the facts , it had into consideration and assessed all evidence admitted at the trial , i.e. it assessed the evidence separately and taken together , and on the basis of such assessment , it drew conclusion if certain fact was established ...

In view of the foregoing , it is clear that in the ordinary proceedings all legally relevant facts were correctly established ... "

On DATE the public prosecutor informed the applicant that there were no grounds for lodging a request for the protection of legality with ORG .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , he was employed by a private company ( “ the employer ” ) as an engineer in charge of sales . At his employer ’s request , he created a PERSON account for the purpose of responding to clients’ enquiries .

On DATE the employer informed the applicant that his ORG communications had been monitored from DATE and that the records showed that he had used the Internet for personal purposes , contrary to internal regulations . The applicant replied in writing that he had only used PERSON for professional purposes . When presented with a CARDINAL - page transcript of his communications on PERSON , the applicant notified his employer that , by violating his correspondence , they were accountable under LAW . The fortyfive pages contained transcripts of all the messages that the applicant had exchanged with his fiancée and his brother during the period when his communications had been monitored ; they related to personal matters involving the applicant . The transcript also contained CARDINAL short messages that the applicant had exchanged with his fiancée on DATE using a personal PERSON account ; these messages did not disclose any intimate information .

On DATE the employer terminated the applicant ’s employment contract for breach of the company ’s internal regulations which stated , inter alia :

“ It is strictly forbidden to disturb order and discipline within the company ’s LOC and especially ... to use computers , photocopiers , telephones , telex and fax machines for personal purposes . ”

The applicant challenged his employer ’s decision before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . He complained that this decision had been null and void since , by accessing his communications , his employer had violated his right to correspondence protected by LAW and LAW .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed his complaint on the grounds that the employer had complied with the dismissal proceedings provided for by LAW and noted that the applicant had been duly informed of the employer ’s regulations that prohibited the use of company resources for personal purposes . ORG judgment reads , in its relevant parts :

“ The court takes the view that the monitoring of the [ applicant ] ’s PERSON communications from the company ’s computer ... during working DATE regardless of whether the employer ’s actions were or were not illegal ( îmbracă sau nu forma ilicitului penal ) – can not affect the validity of the disciplinary proceedings in the instant case ...

However , since the [ applicant ] claimed during the disciplinary proceedings that he had not used PERSON for personal purposes but rather for advising clients on the products offered by his employer , the court finds that checking the content of the [ applicant ] ’s communications was the only method for the employer to verify the [ applicant ] ’s line of defence .

The employer ’s right to monitor their employees’ use of the company ’s computers in the workplace falls within the broad scope of the right to check the manner in which professional tasks are complete .

As long as the employees’ attention ... had been drawn to the fact that , not long before the applicant had received a disciplinary sanction , another colleague had been dismissed for having used the Internet , the telephone and the photocopiers for personal purposes and they had been warned that their activity was under surveillance ( see notice no CARDINAL of DATE that the applicant had signed ... ) it can not be held against the employer that he had not proven transparency and that he had not been open with regard to his activities in monitoring the use of the computers by its employees .

The Internet in the workplace must remain a tool at the employee ’s disposal . It was granted by the employer for professional use and it is indisputable that the employer , by virtue of the right to monitor the employees’ activities , has the prerogative to keep personal use of the Internet monitored .

Some of the reasons that make the employer ’s checks necessary are the possibilities that through use of the Internet employees could damage the company ’s IT systems , or engage in illicit activities in the company ’s name , or reveal the company ’s commercial secrets . ”

The applicant appealed against this judgment . He claimed that emails were also protected by LAW as pertaining to “ private life ” and “ correspondence ” . He also complained that ORG had not allowed him to call witnesses to prove that the employer had not suffered as a result of his actions .

NORP In a final decision of DATE , ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment rendered by ORG . Relying on ORG Directive PERSON , ORG ruled that the employer ’s conduct had been reasonable and that the monitoring of the applicant ’s communications had been the only method of establishing if there had been a disciplinary breach . With regard to his procedural rights , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s arguments , stating that the evidence already before it was sufficient . ORG decision reads , in its relevant parts :

“ In view of the fact that the employer has the right and the obligation to ensure the functioning of the company and , to this end , [ the right ] to check the manner in which its employees complete their professional tasks , and of the fact that [ the employer ] holds the disciplinary power of which it can legitimately dispose and which [ entitled it ] to monitor and to transcribe the communications on PERSON that the employee denied having had for personal purposes , after having been , together with his other colleagues , warned against using the company ’s resources for personal purposes , it can not be held that the violation of his correspondence ( violarea secretului corespondenţei ) was not the only manner to achieve this legitimate aim and that the proper balance between the need to protect his private life and the right of the employer to supervise the functioning of its business was not struck . ”


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants are all NORP nationals living in various regions of GPE . They obtained binding judicial decisions ordering the ORG authorities to provide them with housing or various services in kind , but the enforcement of those judgments was considerably delayed . Some of the judgments remain unenforced to date . The applicants’ individual circumstances are detailed below .

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born on DATE and lived in GPE , LOC .

On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the town administration to conclude a contract for utilities with the applicant before DATE , and to repair the basement of the building he lived in in accordance with the sanitary regulations before the cold DATE . The judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE a commission composed of several members of the housing maintenance authority and residents inspected the basement and found it up to standard .

On DATE the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment , finding that the basement had been repaired as required .

On DATE ORG of GPE clarified the judgment of DATE with regard to the utilities to be supplied . The court specified that the applicant ’s apartment had to be provided with heating , hot and cold water , wastewater services and a cleaning service for the communal area . The enforcement proceedings were resumed .

On an unspecified date , the town administration provided the applicant with a draft contract for the utilities but the applicant refused to sign it without giving a reason .

Considering their obligations under the judgment of DATE to be fulfilled , the town administration requested that the enforcement proceedings be closed . The bailiffs refused .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the administration ’s complaint against the bailiffs’ refusal to close the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the Primorskiy Regional Court granted the administration ’s appeal , finding that the latter had taken all possible measures to comply with the judgment of DATE .

The bailiffs accordingly closed the enforcement proceedings on DATE .

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE ORG ordered the town administration to provide the applicant and his family with appropriate housing in GPE , in accordance with the law , in lieu of his house , which had been demolished by the authorities in DATE . The judgment became final on DATE .

As the judgment had still not been enforced , in DATE the applicant unsuccessfully sought a court order for the seizure of an apartment in a new block which had been built on the plot of land on which his former house had stood .

On DATE the ORG specified that the judgment had to be enforced by the mayor ’s office of ORG .

On DATE the ORG modified the method of enforcement , specifying that the judgment could be enforced by the payment of MONEY ( RUB ) by the town administration . The applicant did not appeal against that judgment and received the monetary award on DATE .

NORP The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the ORG of ORG ordered the municipal administration to provide heating supply to her flat . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal . In a judgment of DATE the ORG of the GPE Region specified possible ways of enforcing the judgment of DATE , namely , by ensuring either a hot water or natural gas supply for heating purposes .

On DATE an individual gas heating device was installed in the applicant ’s flat .

On DATE the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the respondent authority had properly complied with the judgment of DATE .

The applicant , PERSON , was born on CARDINAL DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ordered the town administration to renovate the building in which the applicant held a flat under a social tenancy agreement . The judgment became final on DATE ( “ the first judgment ” ) .

On DATE the bailiffs commenced the enforcement proceedings . The building has at times been included in the town ’s plans to renovate municipal housing but the repairs have never been carried out owing to a lack of funds and a shortage of temporary housing facilities where residents could be relocated during the renovation .

On DATE the ORG found that the applicant was still living in unsuitable conditions and ordered the town administration to provide her and her family with comfortable housing of at least CARDINAL.CARDINAL sq . m. On DATE the judgment became final ( “ the second judgment ” ) and on DATE the bailiffs started the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the authorities’ request for a stay on the enforcement of the second judgment , considering that such a course of action would endanger the applicant ’s and her family ’s life and health . The bailiffs’ made repeated , albeit unsuccessful attempts to secure the enforcement of the judgment by the town administration , including by warning the head of administration of his criminal liability under LAW .

Neither the first nor the second judgment in the applicant ’s favour has been enforced to date . According to the latest information received by ORG , she was still living in the same building . On TIME of CARDINAL DATE there was an electrical short circuit in the communal area on the first floor , provoking a smoke emission in the building .

Meanwhile , the competent authorities continued the enforcement proceedings . After the communication of the present application to ORG , the bailiffs requested ORG on DATE to provide them with a duplicate of the writ of execution in respect of the first judgment , which had been lost shortly after its delivery . On DATE the court ordered a duplicate of the writ of execution to be delivered and the bailiffs resumed the enforcement proceedings on CARDINAL DATE . On that date the bailiff of ORG in GPE ( PERSON отдел судебных приставов по особым исполнительным производствам PERSON службы судебных приставов по PERSON ) decided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . To initiate enforcement proceedings no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ in respect of ORG ] .

To set a time - limit of DATE for the debtor ’s voluntary compliance with the requirements provided for in the writ of execution ( section ORG ) of LAW On enforcement GPE ) .

To warn the debtor that it will be liable to pay an enforcement fee of RUB CARDINAL in the event of non - compliance within the time - limit set and failure to produce evidence that enforcement is impossible on account of extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances . In the event of extraordinary and objectively unavoidable circumstances and other unexpected and insurmountable obstacles making voluntary enforcement impossible , the debtor is requested to inform the bailiff accordingly within the time - limit set for voluntary compliance .

To warn the debtor that under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE on enforcement proceedings the requirements of the bailiff are binding on all ORG authorities , local authorities , individuals and organisations and must be rigorously complied with throughout the territory of GPE .

To warn the debtor that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on enforcement proceedings the bailiff may impose a fine provided for by LAW on a debtor who does not fulfil , within a new time - limit , the requirements set out in the writ of execution .

To warn the debtor that under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on enforcement proceedings the expenses related to the enforcement proceedings are to be paid back by the debtor to the federal budget , the creditor and anyone else who incurred those expenses .

To warn the debtor that ORG officials may be prosecuted under LAW of GPE for non - enforcement of a judicial decision .

On DATE the bailiff was informed by ORG that the enforcement of the judgment was impossible owing to a lack of available flats .

On DATE the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second judgment were still pending along with CARDINAL other similar judgments against the town administration . The bailiff noted that the delay in enforcement could be explained , in particular , by the high number of judgments to be enforced , the lack of available flats and insufficient funding allocated for the building of new flats . The enforcement proceedings referred to by the bailiffs in the applicant ’s case included compulsory requests for the allocation of flats , the inclusion of additional funds in the budget , the identification of available housing and the seizure of available flats with a view to their allocation in accordance with the waiting list . The bailiff also informed the applicant that she was no . CARDINAL on the waiting list .

On DATE the bailiff warned the head of the town administration about criminal liability under LAW for non - enforcement of a judgment .

According to the latest information , the applicant had moved up to no . CARDINAL on the waiting list .

The applicant , Mr PERSON GPE , was born on DATE and lives in GPE . A retired police officer , he was assigned to life - long disability category CARDINAL in DATE on account of injuries sustained during his service .

NORP On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant ’s right to be provided with a car for rehabilitation purposes and ordered ORG to ensure he was provided with one . This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the court supplemented the judgment of DATE , specifying that the applicant ’s right to a car might be secured either at the expense of the regional budget or by informing ORG of his needs . However , the judgment was not enforced .

After the communication of the present application to ORG , on DATE the bailiff imposed a fine of RUB CARDINAL on the debtor authority in accordance with LAW . On DATE the bailiff ’s decision was quashed by ORG on the ground that the debtor authority ’s act did not amount to an administrative offence .

On DATE the bailiff warned the head of the debtor authority about criminal liability under LAW for non - enforcement of a judgment .

On DATE the Governor of GPE issued Order no . CARDINAL-р/адм allocating RUB CARDINAL for the purchase of a car for the applicant . According to an estimate issued on DATE by ORG those funds would cover the purchase of a car ( a Lada Kalina DATE ( RUB CARDINAL ) ) and special hand control equipment ( RUB CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant received a Lada DATE without any special hand control equipment . On DATE the enforcement proceedings were closed .

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a military serviceman . On DATE FAC ordered the Commandant of military unit no . ORG to provide , as a matter of priority , the applicant and his family with housing in the geographical area of his military service in accordance with the law in force . The judgment became final on DATE but was not enforced .

After the communication of the present application to ORG on DATE , ORG allocated a flat located in the GPE suburbs to the applicant . On DATE the applicant was provided with that flat and on DATE concluded a social tenancy contract with the authorities .

The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the Ostankinskiy District Court of GPE ordered ORG of the Federal Real Estate Cadastral Agency ( ORG агентства кадастра объектов недвижимости по PERSON области ) to consider a request by the applicant dated DATE by which she had requested data from the land register in respect of a plot of land located in the village of GPE , GPE , GPE Region ( cadastral no . MONEY ) . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE and the enforcement proceedings were brought on an unspecified date . However , the enforcement of the judgment was delayed .

On DATE ORG issued Order no . P/CARDINAL for the reorganisation of the defendant authority and its incorporation into ORG of ORG . The relevant powers were later conferred to ORG “ ORG ” for LOC ( Федеральное государственное учреждение « PERSON палата ORG по PERSON области - “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s request for clarification on how the enforcement would be carried out . It specified that the judgment had to be executed by ORG , GPE and Cartography ( ORG службы государственной регистрации , кадастра и картографии - “ the FAC ” ) as successor to the respondent authority under the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the same court dismissed the ORG ’s request for appointment of ORG as successor to the respondent authority under the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the ORG requested ORG to provide the data required by the judgment . On DATE the latter informed the ORG that the register contained no information about the plot of land concerned and recommended that the applicant seek its registration by the competent authority of the PERSON district . On DATE that information was sent to the applicant .

On DATE the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against the bailiffs’ decision , considering that the judgment of DATE had been fully enforced .

The applicant , PERSON Ilnitskaya , was born on DATE and lives in GPE . She is a former member of the NORP army .

On DATE the Volsk District Court of GPE upheld her right to a housing voucher . The judgment became final on DATE but was only enforced on DATE when a housing voucher issued on DATE ( no . DATE ) was processed with a view to purchasing a flat in GPE , GPE .

The applicant , Mr PERSON Grinko , was born on DATE and lives in DATE , GPE . He is a military serviceman .

On DATE the Naro - Fominskiy Garrison Military Court ordered the commandant of military unit no . DATE to grant the applicant priority housing in accordance with the law in force . The judgment became final on DATE but was not enforced .

NORP The bailiffs brought the enforcement proceedings on DATE but their repeated requests to the respondent authorities did not result in any action being taken .

On DATE the Naro - Fominskiy Garrison Military Court supplemented the judgment , specifying that it had to be enforced by ORG of ORG ( PERSON жилищного обеспечения PERSON обороны Российской Федерации – “ the ORG ” ) .

After the communication of the present application to ORG , on DATE , the competent bailiff addressed the Minister of Defence with a view to bringing the officials responsible to administrative responsibility .

On DATE the bailiff of ORG in GPE ( PERSON отдел судебных приставов по особым исполнительным производствам PERSON службы судебных приставов по PERSON ) warned the head of ORG that she could face criminal liability under LAW for non - enforcement of a judgment . On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the bailiffs again requested the debtor to comply with the judgment .

On DATE the bailiffs of ORG ( PERSON отдел оперативного дежурства ORG по PERSON ) appeared in person to summon the head of ORG but the latter was not found at her place of residence .

On DATE the bailiff handed a warning under LAW in person to the head of ORG at her place of residence but the latter refused to acknowledge receipt .

On DATE the Odintsovskiy ORG found that the allocation of an apartment to the applicant in GPE , GPE , had been unlawful .

On DATE the bailiff suspended the ORG registration proceedings in respect of CARDINAL apartments in GPE in order to compel the respondent authority to comply with the judgment .

DATE . On DATE the bailiff again summoned the head of ORG to appear in person in order to explain the reasons for the prolonged non - enforcement of the judgment .

According to the latest information received by the ORG , the judgment in the applicant ’s favour remained unenforced .

The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE , GPE Region . She served in ORG of ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) and was entitled to housing .

On DATE FAC ordered the relevant department of the ORG to provide the applicant and her family , as a matter of priority , with housing located in the geographic area of her service in accordance with the law in force .

That judgment became final on DATE but was only enforced on DATE when the applicant concluded a social tenancy agreement with military unit no . CARDINAL for a flat located in GPE , GPE .

The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the ORG of LOC ordered the local administration to provide the applicant with comfortable social housing in accordance with the sanitary and technical regulations in force and located in GPE . On DATE that judgment became final but its enforcement was delayed .

On DATE the district court granted the applicant ’s application for a change in the method of enforcement and ordered the local administration to pay her RUB CARDINAL , that is , the market value of the housing to which she was entitled . On DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG . The award was paid to the applicant in CARDINAL instalments DATE and DATE .

DATE . The CARDINAL applicants mentioned below applied to the competent NORP courts with claims for compensation for delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour , relying on ORG no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE , “ On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable ORG or ORG of a ORG within a Reasonable Time ” ( “ LAW ” ) .

The domestic courts consistently found those actions inadmissible . They held that the judgments at issue imposed on the authorities various obligations in kind , while LAW was only applicable to delayed enforcement of judgments establishing a monetary debt to be recovered from the ORG budgets . ORG of GPE confirmed on appeal that LAW was only applicable to monetary judicial awards .

The domestic courts concerned and the dates of their decisions are detailed below .

PERSON : ORG of GPE , DATE ( upheld on appeal by ORG of GPE on DATE ) ;

Mr PERSON : ORG , DATE ( upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE ) ;

PERSON : ORG , DATE ( upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE ) ;


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .