Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC , a village in LOC .

On DATE the applicants’ son , Mr PERSON ( “ GPE ” ) , born on DATE , was drafted into the army to perform CARDINAL years’ mandatory military service . He was assigned to military unit no . CARDINAL in the village of Mulino-CARDINAL in LOC of LOC .

The applicants regularly received letters from their son . In those letters he described various abuses that he and his fellow new recruits were suffering at the hands of more senior conscripts ( PERSON ) ( under a system called dedovshchina or “ rule of the grandfathers ” ) : extortion , beatings , deprivation of sleep , and so on .

In a letter dated DATE PERSON wrote :

“ PERSON [ DATE before a recruit is demobilised ] is hard here , guys have paid MONEY each in DATE . I ca n’t imagine where I ’m going to get such money ... ”

NORP In his next letter ( undated ) he wrote :

“ It ’s been a nightmare here , the dembels are not being discharged . And we dukhi have our own problems . We are being punished , each of us has to find MONEY [ to be paid ] to the cherpaks . It ’s probably going to be like that DATE ... ”

In the following letter PERSON wrote :

“ The PERSON were offended that I did not bring them vodka and money , and now I do work - outs at TIME for TIME , the sweat is pouring ... ”

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE he wrote :

“ Our demobbees have left and tough times have begun . Flying in DATE and working out at TIME . I counted that I slept TIME [ DATE . That is supposed to be a soldier ’s sleep per day .... [ No more easy life for us ] , we get bullied DATE , so that it has become a routine , even though I think I ’ve got a broken rib [ as ] I can hardly breathe , but they stop us from seeing the medics and they have dislocated my jaw , which creaks like a rusty cart .

... Mum , I ’ll wait for you for DATE and then I ’ll go on the run on my own , maybe with a friend . I do n’t know , maybe you wo n’t understand , but this will be for the best as the dedy are getting wilder by TIME . ”

NORP In a letter dated DATE PERSON wrote :

“ Although I ’ve left the battery I ’m still assigned to it and continue to carry out my stodnevka . I now owe MONEY . The PERSON say that I have to pay off MONEY a month and have given me a deadline of CARDINAL DATE . If I do n’t pay I ’ll be in trouble . Mum , I understand that this is a lot of money , but believe me [ when ] I come back home [ I will pay it back ] . ”

In a letter dated DATE he wrote :

“ The PERSON are waiting for my payment , I borrowed MONEY here and gave them some . I am lucky that I have at least given them some , as some guys here got in trouble , CARDINAL of them are in the medical unit with injuries and the other CARDINAL all have bruises , and our commander can not do anything about it . ”

On DATE , at TIME , PERSON was found dead with a noose around his neck .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ ORG Office ” ) instituted criminal proceedings into the death of GPE under LAW ( Incitement to suicide ) . An on - site inspection and an inspection of LOC ’s body were carried out .

Also on DATE , sergeant PERSON , GPE ’s immediate superior , was questioned . She stated that she was in charge of the guard dogs’ kennels to which GPE had been assigned in DATE . He had been responsible for helping PERSON to take care of the dogs and the LOC . According to PERSON , GPE was only at the kennels during DATE ; from TIME he was at the watch house . GPE was lazy and unreliable , neither too communicative nor too reserved . His behavior was normal ; he never expressed suicidal thoughts or voiced any plans of running away from the military unit . ORG had been told by ORG that he had grown up in a happy , well - to - do family ; he regularly received letters from home . He also regularly received money transfers and parcels from his parents . She knew that he had received over MONEY ( RUB ) for his birthday and RUB CARDINAL recently . PERSON criticised PERSON for asking his parents for money . She was unhappy with GPE ’s work , and often told him so . She also warned him that if he did not change his attitude she would ask the commander to send him back to the battery . Yet nothing changed . PERSON again reprimanded PERSON on DATE ] and asked for his GPE telephone number . She noticed that GPE became frightened and asked her why she needed it . She replied that she wanted to inform PERSON ’s parents of his attitude to his military service and request them not to send him so much money . PERSON reluctantly gave PERSON mother ’s mobile phone number . TIME PERSON telephoned GPE ’s mother , the first applicant , told her that GPE was lazy and did not want to work , and asked her not to send him money too often . She also asked ORG mother to come to the military unit to try and influence her son . PERSON arrived at work on TIME of DATE to find that the kennels were once again uncleaned and the dogs unfed . She again reprimanded PERSON and told him about her conversation with his mother . PERSON took her words calmly . PERSON then left on business . On leaving it did not appear to her that GPE was disturbed . She got back at around QUANTITY a.m. The gate to the kennels was locked from the inside . It could be opened from the outside , but a new dog whom PERSON was still afraid of was running loose . She called to GPE , but he did not respond . PERSON thought that PERSON had gone out and started looking for him , but could not find him . She then asked the warrant officer to assign her a soldier to help her catch the dog . Afterwards PERSON entered the kennels and saw GPE with a noose around his neck .

Again on DATE , the commander of the CARDINALnd guards army , general lieutenant PERSON submitted to the commander in chief of ORG , general lieutenant PERSON the following report :

“ On DATE at TIME , in the CARDINALth mobile artillery unit of the CARDINALrd mobile artillery division private ORG , was found hanged ....

Facts of the matter : At CARDINAL p.m. private GPE was found hanging under the roof of a wooden shed ... by [ sergeant ] PERSON

At TIME the commander of CARDINALth mobile artillery unit , lieutenant colonel PERSON , reported the incident to the commander of the CARDINALrd mobile artillery division and ORG .

During the inspection of the body by representatives of ORG and forensic medical experts , no abrasions or other injuries were discovered . Amongst [ ORG ’s ] personal items was found a letter from [ ORG ’s ] friend [ informing the latter ] that his girlfriend had cheated on him .

[ ORG ] received positive references during his military service . However , the results of a psychological examination which was carried out in DATE and DATE showed that the soldier belonged to the third group in respect of psychological stability [ out of CARDINAL , the fourth group being for the least psychologically stable who were at the highest risk for nervous breakdown ] ; [ he ] was reserved , uncommunicative , had no friends among his fellow soldiers . ...

ORG instituted criminal proceedings in connection with [ ORG ’s ] death .

On - the - spot inquiries are being carried out by the deputy commander of the educational unit , colonel PERSON

The causes of the incident : CARDINAL . The possible reason for [ ORG ’s ] death could be suicide resulting from momentary nervous breakdown fuelled by a breakup with his girlfriend .

Serious omissions in the work of the command of the unit in studying the individual features of the soldiers .

Failure to take the necessary measures by the unit officials for the psychological monitoring of soldiers in need of increased psychological and pedagogical care .

Measures taken : CARDINAL . ( Institution of criminal proceedings in connection with [ ORG ’s ] death . )

The circumstances and possible causes of the incident reported to [ the command ] .

DATE Additional measures by the deputy commanders of the military units and formations and military psychologists for the detection of soldiers with an increased risk of suicide to be carried out until DATE . ”

On DATE a post - mortem examination of ORG ’s body was completed . It was established that GPE had died as a result of strangling which could have been caused by the noose submitted for examination . PERSON could have applied the noose himself . He had no traces of any injuries typical of self - defence . PERSON had died CARDINAL to TIME prior to the examination . No alcohol was detected in his body .

On DATE private PERSON , a driver in the military unit , submitted that he had known GPE since DATE when the latter had started working at the kennels . According to him , PERSON was calm , communicative and kindhearted . He had many friends and never complained about his military service . PERSON never told PERSON that he had been subjected to any bullying by other conscripts , but PERSON constantly clashed with sergeant PERSON , who was in charge of the kennels . She always reprimanded GPE for his work even though , in the opinion of PERSON , GPE carried out his work dutifully . In the opinion of PERSON , GPE had committed suicide because of his conflict with sergeant PERSON , who shouted at him every day and had threatened to send him back to the battery and to telephone his mother .

On DATE , ORG , who had been carrying out military service in military unit no . DATE on a contract basis since DATE , submitted that on DATE , at TIME , he had heard loud noise , a crash as if something had fallen , and a woman shouting “ You vagabond , not doing what you ’ve been told to ... ” . The shouting was coming from the kennels . He saw the door open and a soldier come out , followed by a woman shouting ; her right arm was holding a ladle lifted against the soldier . Ogorodov N. then saw the woman hit GPE on the back of his head and throw the ladle at him . He later found out that the woman was the head of the kennels and the soldier was GPE , who later the same day committed suicide by hanging himself .

On DATE sergeant PERSON was questioned again . She submitted that on DATE [ DATE ] she had come at work at CARDINAL a.m. She had instructed GPE to clean the kennels and gone to the commander to discuss the issue of a money transfer which had arrived for GPE The commander told her that GPE would not get any money until his mother telephoned to explain what the money was for . At TIME to the kennels and saw the gate closed and a dog running loose . She then called GPE and asked him to lock up the dog . Then , together with GPE , she entered the kennels and saw that nothing had been done . She asked PERSON what he had been doing , to which the latter replied that she would see his work on DATE . Then she told PERSON that if he continued doing nothing she would send him back to the battery , to which he responded that he would then run away . She knew that he was very afraid of going back to the battery . PERSON then ordered ORG to chop some wood and to clean everything up until DATE , and went home .

On DATE , the statements of the witness ORG were verified at the scene .

Also on DATE , the witness PERSON ( PERSON ’s aunt ) submitted that she had seen and read GPE ’s letters to the applicants in which he had informed them about the beginning of stodnevka and asked them to send him money . She further submitted that the first applicant had sent PERSON CARDINAL in DATE , RUB MONEY in DATE and RUB CARDINAL at DATE .

Again on DATE , the witness Mr PERSON ( M.P. ’s uncle ) submitted that he had known GPE since he was DATE . According to him PERSON was very calm , polite , and communicative ; he did not suffer from any serious illnesses , had had no head injuries and had never been called to account for any administrative or criminal offences . On DATE PERSON had been drafted into the army . In DATE or DATE Mr PERSON had learned from the first applicant that GPE was being subjected to beatings and extortion in the army , but that it was bearable . Later he learned that GPE had been transferred to the kennels , that he felt much better there and was not complaining . Some time went by and then GPE started writing in his letters that money was being extorted from him ; he did not specify by whom . Then there started telephone calls from a mobile phone ; but PERSON did not have a mobile phone ; PERSON asked the first applicant to put credit on the account of the phone he was calling from and also to send him some credit . Once a senior conscript from GPE ’s military unit called the first applicant ’s mobile phone and asked her to put credit on that telephone account . The first applicant was receiving calls on her mobile phone at all times of DATE and night . In the first applicant ’s last telephone conversation with GPE he asked her to send him RUB CARDINAL , which he needed in order to repay a debt and to give RUB MONEY to senior conscripts . On DATE a woman dog handler called the home number of GPE ’s grandmother and told her that GPE had broken a radio and that GPE ’s family needed to contact a staff officer to settle the issue by reimbursement . On DATE the first applicant tried to contact this woman , but , when she did , the woman did not give her any clear information . The first applicant became very worried . On DATE she tried to contact the command staff , but without success , and became even more worried . On DATE she managed to contact the staff office and was told that GPE had hanged himself . Mr PERSON could not believe it , because GPE had been a normal , even - tempered person .

On DATE PERSON ’s personal items were inspected . No money was found among them .

On DATE lance sergeant PERSON . , performing his mandatody military service since DATE and in military unit no . DATE since DATE , submitted that there were CARDINAL senior conscripts in the battery – sergeant PERSON , private PERSON and private PERSON . , all CARDINAL calm and communicative . He submitted that he had not known of any brutalisation by them of the new recruits . PERSON PERSON . had not known private GPE , as the latter had always been at the kennels , and could not therefore give any impressions of him . He further submitted that he did not know when stodnevka had started for PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , because it did not affect his military service .

On the same date private PERSON , performing his mandatody military service since DATE and in military unit no . DATE since DATE , submitted that he had known GPE for DATE , after which the latter had been transferred from the battery to the kennels . He characterised GPE as reserved , uncommunicative and calm . He further submitted that he had not witnessed any brutalisation of GPE by senior conscripts PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , or by any other conscripts . He further submitted as follows :

“ On DATE ] stodnevka began for PERSON , PERSON and GPE . PERSON began as usual . We made their beds , whichever of us was free . CARDINAL of them would approach the recruits and tell them to bring them MONEY . They never approached me about money and never demanded money from me . Once when a parcel from home arrived for me , I decided to share it with PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . so that they would not touch me . I took cheese , biscuits and sweets and we ate everything together ; they did not threaten me with any violence . ”

PERSON further submitted that GPE would not have wanted to be transferred back to the battery , because he had been reserved and had liked it better at the kennels .

On DATE ( DATE ) , private PERSON , carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE , submitted that in DATE he had had CARDINAL days’ home leave . While at home he bought himself a mobile phone . Upon his return to the military unit he at first used his GPE ORG card , then decided that it was too expensive and decided to buy a local ( GPE Novgorod ) ORG card . He went to lieutenant PERSON , gave him some money and asked him to buy him the local ORG card ; he had got the money from his parents . Lieutenant PERSON bought the card at some time CARDINAL . PERSON used the mobile phone mostly himself and did not tell anyone that he had it for fear that the officers might take it away from him as the soldiers were not allowed to use mobile phones . PERSON had known GPE since DATE . According to him the latter had been reserved , uncommunicative , calm and slightly untidy . They had met at DATE when GPE had invited PERSON for tea at the kennels . The latter had told PERSON that he had a mobile phone and had decided to leave it with GPE so that nobody would see it and steal it . He let PERSON make phone calls home . He also gave his mobile phone to privates PERSON and PERSON He never charged PERSON , Belov NORP or PERSON for calls . At DATE M.P. asked PERSON for the mobile phone to call his mother . He overheard PERSON asking his mother to send him RUB CARDINAL . When PERSON asked GPE why he needed the money , the latter told that he wanted to buy himself a mobile phone . Knowing that stodnevka was beginning , PERSON asked GPE whether he had been subjected to extortion or bullied by anyone , to which he received a negative reply . DATE PERSON received a text message informing him that his mobile phone account had been credited with RUB CARDINAL . Belov NORP told him that it was his sister who had put the money on the account . PERSON also suggested calling his mother to ask her to credit ORG mobile phone account , because he wanted to communicate with his family and friends by text messages . PERSON gave GPE the details of his ORG card . When PERSON asked GPE why he did not want to go back to the battery , the latter answered that he was better off at the kennels and that stodnevka had started in the battery and he did not want to be bullied by the senior conscripts . On DATE PERSON took the mobile phone from GPE On DATE he was going to leave the phone with GPE to charge the battery ; however , he learned from another soldier that GPE had committed suicide . On DATE he received a phone call from an unknown number and a man ’s voice asked : “ PERSON , is that you ? ” , and then “ PERSON , is that you ? ” Pavlyukovskiy replied to the man that he had the wrong number . The man started threatening him and he hung up . The same man called several more times on DATE . When PERSON answered the man introduced himself as PERSON . Pavlyukovskiy came to the conclusion that he had been calling about PERSON He became frightened and switched off the mobile phone . He subsequently destroyed the ORG card .

Again on DATE , private PERSON , carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE , gave statements identical to the statements of PERSON

Again on DATE , private PERSON , carrying out his mandatory military service since DATE and in military unit no . CARDINAL since DATE , submitted that he had known GPE as reserved , uncommunicative and quiet . Mr Shkola further characterised PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . as calm and communicative and submitted that he did not know of any brutalisation by them of new recruits . He submitted that on CARDINAL DATE stodnevka had started for PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , but that he had not seen them approaching any new recruits and extorting money from them . He personally had never had money demanded from him . Neither he nor other conscripts in the battery had been subjected to any violence by PERSON , PERSON .

On DATE , private PERSON , carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE , gave statements identical to those given by the witness PERSON

Also on the same date the applicants asked ORG to grant them victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG ’s medical record was examined . Lieutenant PERSON and private PERSON , carrying out their mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE and DATE respectively , were questioned . They gave statements similar to those given by the witnesses PERSON and GPE

On DATE sergeant PERSON was questioned again . She confirmed that she had phoned the first applicant on DATE asking her to come and talk to GPE because he had not been complying with his duties and risked being transferred back to the battery . The first applicant replied that she could not come because she had been feeling unwell . Then PERSON told the first applicant to call the commander and explain the reason for the money transfer made to GPE and that otherwise GPE would not get the money . She further stated that on DATE she had come to work at TIME She had seen that the dogs had been left unfed , and that the kennels had not been cleaned . She had started scolding PERSON and had told him that she had spoken to his mother , that he had squeezed the last money out of his mother and was unwilling to do anything himself . When PERSON had gone outside she had lightly and unintentionally thrown a ladle in his direction . PERSON had not paid any attention to this , and PERSON had gone to the commander to discuss the issue of ORG ’s transfer back to the battery .

On DATE the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL , major PERSON , submitted as follows : in DATE private GPE was transferred to the kennels . From DATE sergeant PERSON began complaining that GPE was not complying with his duties . The commander repeatedly spoke to GPE so that the latter might change his attitude to his service duties . PERSON had been receiving money transfers from home in the amount of RUB CARDINAL each time . The last money transfer had been in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . He had personally asked GPE why he needed this money and asked him to get his mother to phone him , to which GPE had replied that he wanted to buy a mobile phone and that his mother would certainly phone . On DATE major PERSON had called for PERSON to find out why his mother had still not contacted him . PERSON replied that she would do so . After that PERSON had not spoken to PERSON and had received no telephone call from the first applicant .

On DATE and CARDINAL March CARDINAL privates PERSON and ORG , carrying out their mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE , submitted that by the time they joined the battery ORG had already left for the kennels . Their subsequent statements were identical to those given by the witnesses PERSON , ORG and ORG D.

On DATE sergeant PERSON and lance sergeant PERSON . , carrying out their mandatory military service since DATE and in military unit no . DATE since DATE , denied having subjected GPE or any other conscripts to any violence or extortion .

On DATE ORG ’s fellow recruits PERSON and PERSON made statements identical to those made by the witnesses PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG

In the meantine , on DATE the investigator in charge refused to grant victim status to the first applicant since the investigation had failed to identify those responsible for her son ’s death . No reply followed with regard to the second applicant ’s request .

On DATE captain PERSON , who had been carrying out his military service in military unit no . DATE on a contract basis since DATE , submitted that he used to go to the kennels twice DATE to check how GPE was carrying out his military service . It was always dirty there and he made PERSON clean up . He knew from GPE ’s fellow recruits that GPE was often reprimanded by the head of the kennels for failure to comply with his duties and forgetting to feed the dogs . He did not know if PERSON had had money extorted from him by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the head of the medical unit , captain PERSON , submitted that PERSON had never come to the medical unit with any fractures .

On DATE ORG ’s fellow recruits , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , made statements identical to those made by the witnesses PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON

On DATE ORG ’s fellow recruits PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON made statements identical to those made by the witnesses PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON

On DATE the first applicant was questioned . She submitted that from DATE PERSON had started to complain in his letters that senior conscripts were making him do push - ups at TIME , that he had TIME in DATE , that it had become unbearable in the military unit , and that he was planning to run away . Later PERSON wrote a letter informing the applicants that he had been transferred from the battery to the kennels , and that he was okay . PERSON informed the applicants that on DATE stodnevka had started for senior conscripts and that he had to pay them RUB CARDINAL DATE . For the first payment he had borrowed RUB CARDINAL from another recruit . The first applicant had sent PERSON CARDINAL . In DATE the first applicant sent PERSON CARDINAL,CARDINAL and in DATE RUB CARDINAL . PERSON told her that out of this sum he was planning to pay RUB MONEY to senior conscripts and with the rest of it he was planning to buy a mobile phone . On DATE the first applicant spoke to the woman in charge of the kennels on the phone . The latter informed the first applicant that some soldiers had broken everything at the place where GPE was staying , including a radio . The first applicant replied that she had sent PERSON CARDINAL and that RUB CARDINAL could be taken for the broken radio and the remaining sum given to GPE The first applicant was told that she should contact the commander to resolve the money issue . When she phoned on DATE she was told that ORG had committed suicide . She submitted that she had not complained about the beatings and extortion because PERSON had told her that if she did , the senior conscripts would kill him .

On DATE forensic medical expert PERSON submitted that aside from marks from the strangling there were no injuries of traumatic origin or signs of struggle on GPE ’s body

On DATE attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON . , who had taken part in the on - site inspection and the inspection of GPE ’s body , submitted that they had seen no injuries on GPE ’s body .

On DATE a post - mortem psychological and psychiatric expert report was drawn up in respect of GPE It established that GPE ’s decision to commit suicide could have been influenced by his individual psychological peculiarities , such as immature mental processes , difficulty adapting to new conditions , sensitivity , emotionalism and a tendency to overdramatise events . PERSON had been frightened of going back to the battery because of the more difficult conditions of service there and fears of possible oppression by fellow conscripts . GPE had been in a depressed mood and because of the immaturity of his mental processes he had not been able to constructively resolve the possible problems and had therefore consciously committed an act of autoagression . The experts excluded that GPE could have committed suicide owing to a breakup with a girlfriend or as a result of his conflict with sergeant PERSON

On DATE investigator PERSON of ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings owing to lack of any evidence that a crime had been committed . It was established that GPE had committed suicide of his own accord on account of his individual psychological makeup and for fear of being transferred back to the battery where the conditions of service were more difficult and where he feared oppression by his fellow recruits . The decision relied on the record of the on - site inspection , the record of the inspection of GPE ’s body , a forensic medical examination report , the statements of witnesses ORG , PERSON , PERSON and other fellow recruits of GPE , and GPE ’s post - mortem psychological and psychiatric report .

In DATE the applicants applied to ORG of FAC ( “ the ORG ” ) seeking the setting aside of the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG held that since those responsible for the applicants’ son ’s death had not been identified during the pre - trial investigation , there was no evidence that a crime had been committed and hence no victims .

On DATE ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE and referred the matter back to ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the ORG claim and instructed ORG to grant them victim status in the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with their son ’s death .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld that decision on appeal .

In DATE the applicants asked ORG to provide them with copies of the court decisions regarding the instituting of the criminal proceedings , the granting to them of victim status and the termination of the proceedings .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of ORG refused to enforce the decision of DATE granting the applicants victim status . He justified the refusal on the grounds that the criminal casefile was still with the court and the proceedings had not been resumed .

On DATE the ORG representative asked ORG to send the case file to the applicants .

On DATE the applicants were provided with copies of the decisions on the institution and termination of the criminal proceedings . They were further informed that there was no possibility that the instructions of the court granting them victim status would be enforced , because the criminal case was still with the court and , therefore , criminal proceedings had not been resumed .

On DATE the applicants challenged the investigator ’s decision of DATE before ORG .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants’ claim and ordered ORG to quash the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court held as follows :

“ ... As established at the court hearing , by a judgment of DATE , upheld on appeal on DATE , ORG of FAC was ordered to grant [ the applicants ] victim status in the criminal proceedings . However , at the present moment they have not been granted victim status , [ they ] are not acquainted with the material in the case file , [ they ] have had no opportunity to give evidence , to file applications or challenges , or to exercise other powers provided for by the law . [ The aforesaid ] , in the court ’s opinion , represents a substantial violation of [ the applicants’ ] rights . For this reason the court considers the decision to drop the criminal proceedings to be unjustified ... ”

In DATE the applicants again tried to see the case file , but in vain .

In DATE the case file was submitted to ORG of LOC , and the ORG representative photographed the documents it contained with a digital camera .

On DATE the acting head of ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE discontinuing the criminal proceedings . On DATE the criminal investigation into the death of the applicants’ son was resumed .

On DATE the applicants were granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE investigator S. of ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings owing to lack of evidence that a crime had been committed . The decision was worded identically to the decision of DATE .

On DATE the deputy head of ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE . It found that the investigation was incomplete , the circumstances of the death of the applicants’ son had not been fully investigated , and the decision was unjustified and perfunctory . In particular , the applicants had not been informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE granting them victim status in the proceedings and they had not been questioned . The criminal proceedings were resumed .

On DATE the applicants were again granted victim status .

On DATE the applicants were informed of the decision of CARDINAL October DATE and were questioned by investigator PERSON . of ORG of ORG .

DATE . On DATE the proceedings were yet again discontinued owing to the absence of any evidence that a crime had been committed . The decision was worded identically to the decisions of DATE and DATE .


Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE , habitually resides in ORG , and is currently detained in the PERSON prison . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL others were charged with aggravated robbery on the basis of the suspicion that , on DATE , as an organised group , they had forcibly entered private forest grounds , inflicted injuries to a guard to which he later succumbed , appropriated CARDINAL tractors and attempted to appropriate a third , and fled the crime scene once it had proved impossible to load the first CARDINAL tractors onto a lorry .

On DATE the applicant and the others were indicted to stand trial on the above charges in ORG ( PERSON súd ) . At the same time , a warrant was issued for the applicant ’s arrest , which was followed by another similar warrant on DATE .

At an unspecified time , ORG was sent a letter dated DATE which was purportedly written and signed by the applicant , in which the author described what may be surmised to be the applicant ’s version of events . The charges against the applicant were denied ‒ their factual basis , in particular , being disputed ‒ and it was alleged that the applicant had gone into hiding out of fear for his life . In his submission to the ORG , the applicant has denied the authenticity of this document .

On DATE the decision was taken that the applicant , who was still missing , should be tried in his absence ( konanie proti ušlému ) .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings at which it took and assessed complex written , oral and expert evidence , including a pre - trial deposition by CARDINAL of the applicant ’s coaccused ( A. ) incriminating the applicant . The applicant ’s court - appointed lawyer inspected the case file on her own initiative and attended all but the first of these hearings .

Following the hearing of DATE , on DATE ORG found the applicant and his coaccused guilty .

The pre - trial deposition of A. was instrumental in establishing the guilt of the applicant and he was sentenced for DATE and a half years’ imprisonment .

All parties appealed ( odvolanie ) to ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) .

In the applicant ’s case , his lawyer appealed on his behalf , arguing inter alia that the first - instance court had failed to take any notice of the applicant ’s letter of DATE , that A. was not a credible witness , that CARDINAL of the remaining co - accused had merely presumed that the applicant had been present at the crime scene , and that the other CARDINAL had not seen him there .

The applicant ’s lawyer also filed observations in reply to the appeal by the prosecution , in which she addressed the evidentiary situation and submitted that they had misconstrued it to the applicant ’s disadvantage .

ORG heard the appeals on DATE , in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer . Following the hearing , on DATE , it corrected certain technical errors in the first - instance judgment and reduced the applicant ’s sentence to CARDINAL and DATE on the grounds that , combined with a previous sentence , the penalty imposed by ORG was in excess of that permitted by statute .

On DATE ORG issued a warrant against the applicant for the enforcement of his sentence and ordered that he be taken to prison .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and on DATE was remanded by ORG ( PERSON ) pending extradition to GPE in connection with the above proceedings and conviction .

On DATE the Minister of Justice of GPE allowed the applicant ’s extradition but at the same time suspended its implementation pending the outcome of unrelated criminal proceedings against him in GPE and , potentially , the service of his sentence imposed in those proceedings .

Later in DATE the NORP courts found the applicant guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , following which a new decision was taken to suspend his extradition to GPE pending service of this sentence .

According to the applicant , DATE and DATE ‒ while still detained in GPE ‒ he had asked the NORP prison authorities CARDINAL times to provide him with NORP criminal legislation , but to no avail . In support of this allegation , he submitted CARDINAL original handwritten requests . These indicate neither any addressee nor anything to show that they were actually submitted and duly received .

On DATE the applicant requested that he be served with a copy of the firstinstance judgment . So he was , on DATE , albeit with no instructions ( poučenie ) regarding any possible remedies available to him in the specific circumstances of his case .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant made a submission to ORG formulated as an appeal , only to have it dismissed by ORG on DATE as out of time .

In that respect , ORG observed that the applicant had been convicted in his absence , that the conviction had become final and binding and that , under LAW applicable at that time ( PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended - “ the DATE ORG ” ) , persons convicted in their absence by a final and binding judgment had no right of appeal .

At the same time , ORG noted that the applicant was at liberty to assert his rights by way of an application for a complaint in the interest of the law ( sťažnosť pre porušenie zákona ) to be lodged on his behalf by ORG or the Minister of ORG and by a request for reopening of proceedings ( obnova konania ) .

According to the applicant , a written version of ORG decision of DATE was not served on him until DATE .

However , according to a postal delivery confirmation slip submitted by the Government , which bears the applicant ’s signature , that decision was served on and received by him on DATE .

On DATE the applicant made a request for reopening of proceedings under LAW applicable at that time ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ‒ “ DATE ORG ” ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which he and his lawyer amended on DATE and DATE , respectively . They submitted that the applicant had only learned about the events underlying the charges from television reports ; that he had not been present at the crime scene ; that at the request of CARDINAL of his associates he had only acted as a lookout nearby ; that at the time of the impugned events he had not known the remaining CARDINAL co - accused ; that they had implicated him to serve their own interests ; and that he had left GPE in fear for his life after he had learned that CARDINAL of his co - accused had been planning to “ take out ” a witness .

In addition , the applicant submitted that at no stage of the proceedings had he been heard , and that although legal representation was mandatory , he had had none at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , which was in violation of his right to a fair trial under LAW .

Moreover , he argued that the sentence had been disproportionate to his actual involvement , and that the submissions of A. made at pre - trial stage should be reexamined before a court .

In terms of new evidence , the applicant identified a fresh witness and asked that he undergo polygraph testing , and he requested a face - to - face confrontation ( konfrontácia ) with the other co - accused .

The request was dismissed by ORG in a public session ( verejné zasadnutie ) held on DATE and , following the applicant ’s interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ) , by ORG on DATE .

Both courts noted that the applicant was serving a DATE sentence in GPE , which was why he could not be present in person . Under the applicable statutory rules , a reopening of proceedings would be warranted only if there was new evidence that could bring about a different outcome . Although the applicant ’s testimony would constitute evidence which was new , in view of the evidential situation as a whole , no other outcome could be expected .

The courts also concluded that , since the witness identified by the applicant had refused to give evidence at the original trial , his testimony did not constitute new evidence , nor would there be any new evidence as a result of the face - to - face confrontation . Moreover , results of polygraph testing were not recognised as evidence under DATE ORG .

Lastly , it was not new to the court that the applicant had lacked legal representation at the pre - trial stage . However , any objection in this respect should have ‒ but had not ‒ been raised by his ORG - appointed lawyer at the trial stage and on appeal .

There were therefore no grounds for reopening the proceedings .

Meanwhile , the applicant ’s conviction and sentencing by the NORP courts had been recognised in GPE with a view to having the applicant serve the remainder of his sentence there .

The applicant ’s extradition was implemented and he was actually transferred to GPE on DATE .

NORP The NORP courts then commuted the DATE sentence imposed on the applicant in GPE to two years and DATE because , in combination with the DATE sentence previously imposed in GPE , the overall penalty was in excess of that permitted by statute .

NORP The applicant is now serving the reduced sentence in GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW of LAW ( Constitutional Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) . At the same time , he requested that a legal - aid lawyer be appointed to represent him .

As for the substance , the applicant relied on LAW and challenged the dismissal of his request for reopening of proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) arguing that he had never been heard , that he had not had legal representation at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings ‒ despite such representation being mandatory ‒ and that the principle of equality of arms had been disregarded .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible , essentially relying on its doctrine that the application of a statute in judicial proceedings in a manner consistent with the applicable procedural rules can not amount to a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms . The complaint was thus manifestly ill - founded and there was no purpose in examining the applicant ’s legal - aid request .

On an unspecified date the applicant also requested protection of his rights by means of an appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) to be lodged on his behalf by the Minister of ORG .

In a letter of DATE the Ministry informed him that his case was not amenable to the temporal application of the rules of the DATE ORG on appeals on points of law and that , therefore , no such appeal was available .

The applicant also requested leave to appeal against the judgment of DATE outside the time - limit . His request was dismissed by ORG as unfounded on DATE .

Article CARDINAL reads :

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall decide on complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .

If ORG finds a complaint to be justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that the person ’s rights or freedoms as set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated by a final decision , specific measure or other act and shall quash that decision , measure or act . If the violation that has been found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order [ the authority ] which has violated the [ person ’s ] rights or freedoms to take the necessary action . At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order that authority to refrain from violating the [ person ’s ] fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order those who have violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL to restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .

In its decision on a complaint , ORG may grant appropriate financial compensation to a person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated .

The liability for damage or other loss of a person who has violated the rights or freedoms as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall not be affected by ORG decision . ”

The implementation of the above provision of LAW is set out in more detail in sections CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) . Pursuant to its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) :

“ A constitutional complaint shall be lodged within DATE from the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding or on which a measure has been notified or on which a notice of other interference has been given . As regards the measures and other interferences , the above period shall commence when the complainant could have become aware of them . ”

The relevant provisions of DATE ORG are summarised in PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

DATE ORG entered into force on DATE and wholly replaced the DATE ORG .

Under LAW submissions are always to be interpreted according to their content even if they have been given a misleading or erroneous heading . A similar provision existed under DATE ORG ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The rules concerning proceedings against absent defendants are contained in Section ( Oddiel ) CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) in Part CARDINAL ( Časť ) .

Under these rules , convicted fugitives have the right to request , within a period of DATE from the date on which they learned of their prosecution or conviction , but in any event within the applicable period of limitation , that their case be re - examined ( opätovné prejednanie ) by a court in their presence ( LAW ) .

If these conditions are met , the previous decision must be quashed and the case re - examined on the basis of the original bill of indictment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Requests for reopening of proceedings are governed by the provisions of LAW CARDINAL in Part CARDINAL .

In particular , an order to reopen proceedings concluded with the force of final and binding judgment may be issued if there emerge facts or evidence not known to the court in the original trial which ‒ either in themselves or in conjunction with facts and evidence known to the court at the original trial ‒ may result in a different decision as to the accused ’s guilt or render the punishment imposed manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the circumstances of the offender ( LAW ) .

In a decision of DATE in appeal no . PERSON , ORG held that if a criminal trial against an absent defendant ended with a final and binding judgment , the guilty party had no right to have the judgment served on him or her and that , if he or she challenged that judgment by way of an appeal , the appeal was to be rejected as out of time .

In a judgment of DATE in case no . III . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG found that a criminal court had breached LAW ( b ) and ( c ) of the LAW in that it had tried and convicted the complainant in absentia without having properly established whether or not he could be considered a fugitive .

ORG quashed the conviction , remitted the case to the criminal court for re - examination , ordered the complainant ’s immediate release , and awarded him compensation .

As regards the statutory DATE period for introducing a complaint , ORG held specifically that this period may only commence once the contested decision has been properly served on the complainant and that , as long as this is not the case , the period may not commence ( see decision of DATE published in ORG of ORG under no . PERSON and also the admissibility decisions of DATE and DATE in unrelated cases nos . III . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL and III . ÚS DATE ) .

In the context of complaints about judicial proceedings , ORG has ‒ when determining compliance with the twomonth time - limit under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ‒ consistently considered irrelevant the dismissal of ORG requests for an extraordinary appeal to be filed on their behalf . It has instead held the date of the final effect of the contested judicial decisions to be relevant in that context ( see , for example , decision of CARDINAL DATE in the case no . GPE . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , with further references ) . A similar approach is taken with respect to terminated proceedings in relation to which a request for reopening which has been dismissed ( see decision of DATE in the case no . II . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


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

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

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

On DATE ORG in GPE convicted the applicant of murder . In the criminal proceedings PERSON was heard as a witness . In its judgment the domestic court dismissed the applicant ’s argument that he had shot the victim in self - defence . The applicant was subsequently transferred to GPE to serve his prison sentence .

On DATE V. , the owner of the apartment where the applicant had committed the crime brought a civil action against the applicant before ORG . He claimed compensation for damage caused as a consequence of the offence ( damaged chair which had been hit by the bullet , damaged or lost belongings ( mostly various items used to wrap parts of the victim ’s cut up body ) , damaged flooring after the police had cut out a piece of parquet with a bullet mark to serve as evidence , a lock cylinder removed for evidence , cleaning bills , unpaid utility bills ) in the amount of CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) ( corresponding to MONEY ( EUR ) ) . The plaintiff submitted to the court documentary evidence ( material from the criminal case , photos , invoices , inventory list of the apartment attached to the contract between ORG and the victim ) in support of his claims .

On DATE ORG ruled that the action was accepted for proceedings and that the case was to be dealt with in simplified proceedings ( lihtsustatud menetlus ) under LAW ORG ) ( ORG seadustik ) . It also explained to the parties that if they wished to be heard , they would have to notify the court within DATE of the date of receiving the decision . The applicant was asked to provide the court with a written reply to the action .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG in writing that he did not object to accepting the action for proceedings but he contested the claim , arguing that he had not damaged or destroyed the items in question . He further contended that he had not committed murder but had shot the victim in self - defence ; in so far as the alleged damage related to the collection of evidence , it had been caused by the police ; the claims were unsubstantiated in part . He requested examination of the case at a court hearing and asked that he and CARDINAL witnesses ( T. and PERSON and NORP forensic experts ) be summoned and questioned in court . He stated that he wished to explain that he had not caused the damage and had acted in self - defence . As to the witnesses , he also wished them to give evidence about his acting in self - defence .

On DATE plaintiff PERSON replied in writing to the applicant ’s submissions , stating that he did not deem it necessary for the applicant to be present in person at the court hearing . He asked the court to dismiss the applicant ’s request for the summoning of witnesses , as these individuals would be unable to give testimony about the items in the apartment or their value , and their statements could not refute the findings of a final court decision . He also submitted additional evidence to the court ( a photo of CARDINAL of the items in question ; a bank statement about the payment of utility bills ; price lists to prove the cost of another damaged item and the cost of cleaning services ) .

On DATE ORG ruled that the case was to be examined in written proceedings ( kirjalik menetlus ) under LAW ORG . The court noted the plaintiff ’s agreement to the case being examined in written proceedings and that the applicant wished to be heard . It then went on to explain that under LAW ORG a written procedure could be applied when the amount of the claim was under CARDINAL kroons ( EUR CARDINAL ) and a party ’s appearance in court was significantly hindered by a long distance or for any other good reason . It gave the parties a thirtyday time - limit from the date of receipt of the decision for making any written submissions . No appeal lay against this decision .

No submissions were made to the court within DATE time limit .

By a judgment of DATE ORG adjudicated the case in simplified and written proceedings . The court noted in its judgment that it had also examined the material pertinent to the related criminal case and relied as documentary evidence on the statements made by T. in the criminal proceedings . Relying on the judgment in the criminal case , ORG considered it established that the applicant had not acted in self - defence when he killed the victim . Based on the material of the criminal case as well as documentary evidence submitted by ORG , ORG accepted PERSON ’s claim in part , that is in the amount of EEK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL , which amounted to PERCENT of the initial claim ) . The court found on the basis of the applicant ’s submissions that accepting the claim was not justified in so far as it concerned the lock cylinder , unpaid utility bills and certain allegedly damaged items . It was noted in the judgment that an appeal lay to ORG and that the appeal could be examined in a written procedure unless examination at a court hearing had been requested in the appeal .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against ORG judgment . He complained that , although he had requested an oral hearing before ORG , no hearing had been held . He had therefore been deprived of an opportunity to be examined and to explain his position , according to which he had caused no unlawful damage to the plaintiff ’s property . He relied on LAW and also referred to persons whose examination he had requested . He challenged ORG reliance on the criminal court ’s judgment and claimed that in a civil case it should be possible to challenge facts established in a criminal case .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant ’s appeal . It noted that ORG had examined the case in simplified proceedings ( lihtmenetlus ) . In such circumstances , ORG could only accept an appeal for examination if ORG in its judgment had granted leave to appeal or a provision of substantive or procedural law had clearly been incorrectly applied or it was clear that the evidence had been wrongly assessed and this could have significantly influenced the court ’s ruling . ORG had not granted leave to appeal . ORG did not find that in the case at hand it could be said that ORG had clearly incorrectly applied a provision of substantive or procedural law or clearly wrongly assessed the evidence or breached the right to be heard ( ärakuulamise õigus ) . ORG had examined the matter under LAW ORG in simplified proceedings . Pursuant to LAW ORG , in such proceedings the court had to guarantee that the fundamental rights and freedoms and the essential procedural rights of the parties were observed and that the parties were heard ( kohus kuulab menetlusosalise ära ) if they so requested . However , for that it was not necessary for a court hearing ( kohtuistung ) to be conducted . On DATE ORG had ruled that the case was to be examined in written proceedings and had given the parties an opportunity to make written submissions . The applicant had thus been guaranteed an opportunity to present his position to the court . ORG further noted that the applicant had not objected under LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG to ORG decision of DATE whereby the court had ordered that the case be examined in simplified proceedings and requested the applicant to make his submissions in writing . Pursuant to LAW and LAW ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) ORG could not therefore consider these arguments in the appellate proceedings . ORG concluded that there was no legal basis for it to accept the applicant ’s appeal for examination .

The applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision , arguing that by refusing to allow him a hearing ORG had clearly violated procedural law and LAW .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided not to examine the appeal .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant and his wife went by car from their home to another village . The applicant ’s wife was driving . The car had been borrowed from the applicant ’s friend . On a narrow section of the road they saw a police car trying to stop another car . The applicant ’s wife , who apparently considered it an unsafe place to stop other cars , overtook the police vehicle and sounded the horn , though she claims to have done this by accident .

While being overtaken , the police officers noticed that the car driven by the applicant ’s wife had no left rear light and that its rear registration plate was not lit . They decided to stop the car to inspect it .

They overtook the applicant and his wife , stopped the car and requested the relevant documents . They considered that the registration document of the car was partly illegible . According to the applicant , he read the contents of the registration document aloud to the officers . They tried to contact the PERSON police station to confirm the identity of the driver but to no avail . The applicant and his wife spent TIME in the car at the side of the road . He then requested that they all drive to the police station because he wanted to speak to the ORG supervisor . They all drove to the police station in GPE , but there was no one there , so the police officers continued the inspection on the street outside .

They found that , apart from the light that did not work , the fire extinguisher in the car was too small . They wanted to fine the applicant ’s wife MONEY ( PLN ) . The applicant then told her : “ do not sign anything for those beggars ” ( “ Nie podpisuj nic tym dziadom ” ) . The officers felt offended and CARDINAL of them told the applicant that he would be arrested for insulting police officers .

According to the applicant , by that time the “ routine ” inspection had already lasted for TIME , and he and his wife were getting nervous . His wife began to cry because the officers wanted to take her to the police station for questioning . The policemen repeated “ this will cost a lot ” each time they found a fault with the car . He therefore considered that they wanted him to bribe them and referred to them as “ beggars ” . According to the applicant , he was trying to defend his wife who , after TIME of intervention , was very anxious and upset . The officers claimed that the applicant had been disturbing their routine activities . As established by the domestic courts in the set of proceedings against the police officers , when CARDINAL of the police officers had told the applicant that he would be arrested , the applicant pushed the police officer and started to run away .

As established by the domestic courts in the set of proceedings against the applicant , on the basis of the testimony of the policemen , after the comment made by the applicant the police officers tried to apprehend him , however he resisted arrest and moved a few steps back . Officer PERSON then forcefully put the applicant onto the ground and pressed down on him with his knee . The applicant continued to resist and try to get away and then kicked PERSON several times in his left leg . The other officer , PERSON , then used pepper spray against him . When the applicant calmed down he was handcuffed .

NORP The applicant was subsequently taken to the police station . His wife informed the policemen that her husband had heart problems , so they called an ambulance . The doctor who came to the police station considered that the applicant needed to be examined in a hospital so he was taken to PERSON . After examination he was placed in police custody ( PERSON ) . He was released DATE . Apparently after his release he was examined again in a hospital in GPE .

The relevant notes from the hospitals , in so far as they were legible , contained the following information .

Notes by ORG on DATE read :

“ Skin bruising on the right hand . ORG burn to the right eye . ”

A document dated DATE confirming the applicant ’s release from ORG read :

“ He claims that DATE he was beaten up by the police officers who used pepper spray on him . Skin bruising on the right hand , chemical burn to the right eye , reddish conjunctivitis in the right eye . ”

The applicant also submitted a copy of a medical certificate requesting that he be examined by an ophthalmologist , because of “ burns from pepper spray ” . The note was marked “ urgent ” but bore no date .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about his arrest with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . He submitted that he had been apprehended by force and put onto the ground , that the police had used a whole container of pepper spray and that he had many scratches and bruises . He had been released from the police custody facility at TIME and let out by the back door without a jacket or any money . He had had to walk until he had found a taxi driver who had agreed to give him a lift and call his wife , who had apparently been waiting at the police station since TIME and had had no idea that he had been released and let out by the back door .

On DATE ORG refused to allow the applicant ’s complaint . It found that in his complaint he had presented “ his own version of events ” and that his arrest had been lawful because “ although there was no fear that he might go into hiding there was a reasonable suspicion that he might influence the testimony of a witness to the events in question ” . The court also considered that at the moment of the arrest there were grounds to suspect the applicant of having committed the offence referred to in LAW and there were grounds to bring proceedings against him in an expedited manner .

Having examined the grounds , legality and appropriateness of the applicant ’s arrest , the court found no shortcomings . It appears that the court did not hear evidence from any witnesses ; it based its findings on a note made by the police and the arrest and examination records .

The court did not refer to the applicant ’s allegations as regards the use of excessive force by the police .

On DATE the police lodged an indictment against the applicant with ORG . He was charged with offending police officers on duty and breaching the personal inviolability of a police officer by kicking him . On DATE in his reply to the bill of indictment , when describing the “ kicking ” he stated that these could have been involuntary movements as he had been pushed to the ground and pressed down on with a police officer ’s knee and pepper spray had been directed into his face . He submitted that he had not intended to hit anybody .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and conditionally discontinued the proceedings against him . The court held that in his statements the applicant had not actually denied kicking the police officer PERSON as he could not rule out that he had made the movements with his legs involuntarily , without the intention of hitting anybody . He was also ordered to pay PLN CARDINAL to charity and the costs of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant appealed . He submitted that he did not feel guilty ; on the contrary , he had been a victim . He also considered that he could not have violated anybody ’s personal inviolability because he had been pressed against the ground and CARDINAL officers had been sitting on his back trying to handcuff him .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings , finding that the prohibited acts committed by the applicant had not constituted offences because the resulting harm to the public was insignificant ( znikoma szkodliwość społeczna czynu ) .

On DATE the applicant reported the QUANTITY police officers who had arrested him on DATE to ORG for abuse of power .

On DATE ORG opened an investigation into their alleged abuse of power .

On DATE the applicant and his wife were questioned . On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor questioned officers PERSON and PERSON

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation , finding that no offence of abuse of power had been committed . Referring to the relevant provisions of domestic law , in particular LAW , the prosecutor found that the police had had the right to use force because “ the applicant had not obeyed their orders , had behaved nervously and had tried to run away ” .

The applicant appealed . He argued , among other things , officers had apprehended him for no legal reason . The applicant admitted that he had been nervous because of the inspection which had lasted for TIME , but considered that this could not have been the basis for his arrest . He further submitted that the officers had used excessive force , inappropriate in the circumstances ; they had put him onto the ground with his face down and had sat on his back and used pepper spray to incapacitate him . He had had injuries afterwards and had to take over a DATE ’s sick leave . He also referred to the circumstances of his release from the police station and the fact that his wife , who had been waiting there for him , had not been informed that he had left by the back door .

On DATE ORG upheld the challenged decision discontinuing the investigation . It found that the applicant had again repeated his version of events which the prosecutor had found not to be credible . The court did not refer in any way to his submissions as regards his injuries . It found that the “ circumstances of the applicant ’s arrest [ had already been ] examined because the applicant had complained about his arrest and his complaint [ had been ] dismissed ” . The court further held that “ it had been reprehensible not to have informed the applicant ’s wife of the applicant ’s release but this had not constituted any offence ” .


MANDIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

PERSON and Mr PERSON are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . Mr PERSON is a citizen of GPE and GPE who was born in DATE . Mr PERSON is a citzen of GPE and a national of GPE who was born in DATE . All the applicants live in GPE .

Mr PERSON was represented before the ORG by PERSON NORP GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , ORG .

ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right .

The applicants or their spouses were officers of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( “ the SFRY ” ) . The present case concerns their attempts to repossess their pre - war flats in GPE .

Practically all flats in the former SFRY were part of the system of “ social ownership ” . They were generally built by socially owned enterprises or other public bodies for allocation to their employees , who became “ occupancy right holders ” . All citizens of the SFRY were required to pay a means - tested contribution to subsidise housing construction . However , the amount an individual had contributed was not amongst the legal criteria taken into account with regard to waiting lists for the allocation of such flats .

On DATE JNA members were offered the opportunity to purchase their flats at a discount on their market value ( see FAC DATE , Zakon o stambenom obezbjeđivanju u NORP narodnoj armiji , ORG of the SFRY no . CARDINAL ) . DATE the applicants , or their spouses , were allocated military flats in GPE which they later purchased under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE .

On DATE GPE suspended the sale of military flats on its territory ( see the Suspension on GPE DATE , ORG o privremenoj zabrani prodaje stanova u društvenoj svojini , ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The LAW was respected in what is today the Federation of Bosnia and GPE , and those who had purchased military flats located in that Entity could not register their ownership and remained , strictly speaking , occupancy right holders ( a purchase contract does not of itself transfer title to the buyer under domestic law ) .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicants , or their spouses , continued their military careers in the FAC forces and left GPE . They were thereafter allocated tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats in GPE , which some of them even purchased later .

During the war , the local armed forces ( namely , the ORG , ORG and ORG forces ) assumed nominal control of all non - privatised military flats on the territory under their respective control ( ORG o preuzimanju sredstava bivše Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; ORG o preuzimanju vojnostambenog fonda JNA , Official PERSON of the Republika Srpska no . CARDINAL ; PERSON o sredstvima i finansiranju NORP PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; ORG o utvrđivanju namjene i prenošenju prava upravljanja i korištenja sredstvima bivše Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije , PERSON , a koja se nalaze na području PERSON i ORG ; ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Although on DATE those forces merged into the armed forces of GPE , non - privatised military flats are still under the nominal control of the Entities .

A more detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s husband , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant ’s husband continued his military career in the FAC forces .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband applied to the competent domestic authorities to have the flat in GPE restored to him . After her husband ’s death , the applicant continued those proceedings ( in accordance with LAW , which is still in force , spouses share occupancy rights ) .

On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to ORG , a member of the ORG forces .

Following CARDINAL remittals on procedural grounds , on DATE the application for restitution was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE the competent ORG upheld the first - instance decision of DATE . On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) upheld the second - instance decision .

It would appear that the applicant has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the applicant , a JNA medical officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .

On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .

On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE . On DATE he purchased that flat .

On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE .

Following CARDINAL remittal on procedural grounds , on DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG .

On DATE the competent ORG upheld the first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG , following an application for judicial review , upheld the second - instance decision of DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for extraordinary review of that judgment ( zahtjev za vanredno preispitivanje sudske odluke ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against ORG decision .

On DATE ORG ( “ the LAW ” ) rejected his appeal as incompatible ratione materiae since it held that ORG decision had not involved an examination of the substance of the applicant ’s claims but only of whether the procedural requirements for an extraordinary review of ORG judgment had been met .

On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that the applicant was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex CARDINAL and declined jurisdiction . On DATE the restitution commission rejected the applicant ’s request for reconsideration of his claim .

On DATE ORG , following an application for judicial review , quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration . In the meantime , however , the restitution commission had ceased to exist and its cases were taken over by the competent municipal housing authority . It would appear , however , that no decision was taken as regards the applicant ’s request following remittal .

In DATE the applicant , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .

On DATE he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant continued his military career in the FAC forces .

On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE , GPE . On DATE he purchased that flat .

On an unknown date he applied to the competent domestic authorities to have his flat in GPE restored to him . On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision of DATE . It would appear that the applicant did not appeal against that decision .

On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces . His military service was terminated in DATE .

On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to PERSON , a member of the ORG forces .

DATE . On DATE the applicant applied to the competent domestic authorities to have his flat in GPE restored to him . Following CARDINAL remittals on procedural grounds , on DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision . On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG upheld the second - instance decision .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s constitutional appeal and upheld the impugned decisions .

On an unknown date the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE .

It would appear that he has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE all purchase contracts concluded under LAW DATE were declared void ( Zakon o preuzimanju sredstava bivše ORG u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Thereafter , the legislation regulating this matter , ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ORG ( Zakon o prestanku primjene PERSON o napuštenim stanovima , Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , underwent numerous changes and all such contracts were declared legally valid . However , CARDINAL categories of buyer are not entitled to repossess their flats and to register their title to them ( see section DATE of the Privatisation of Flats Act DATE and section CARDINAL of ORG . The first category concerns those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war . The second concerns those who acquired occupancy or equivalent rights to a military flat in a successor ORG of the SFRY , like the present applicants . However , they are now entitled to compensation under section ORG . While the compensation had initially been envisaged as the refund of the amount paid for the flats in DATE plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits , on DATE ORG ( decision no . U CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) declared that method of determining the amount of compensation unconstitutional and ordered ORG to amend it in line with ORG cited above , § § DATE and DATE ) .

For a more detailed analysis of the relevant domestic law and practice and of the relevant international documents , see PERSON ( cited above , § § DATE ) and PERSON and Others ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

It has no longer been possible to acquire occupancy rights in GPE since DATE ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , Zakon o stanovanju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) . Instead , current and retired members of the armed forces and current and retired staff of ORG have thereafter been entitled to equivalent tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats or , in case of a lack of suitable flats , mortgage loans co - financed by the ORG on condition that they or their spouses or children do not have occupancy or equivalent rights to a flat in any of the former ORG ( the Military Housing Ordinance DATE , PERSON o načinu i kriterijumima za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON ministarstvu za odbranu i PERSON , Official Gazette of GPE nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o načinu i kriterijumima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; the Military Housing Ordinance CARDINAL , PERSON o načinu , kriterijumima i merilima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u ORG odbrane i PERSON i PERSON , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o rešavanju stambenih pitanja u ORG odbrane , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE and DATE , PERSON o rešavanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and PERSON o rešavanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG no . CARDINAL ) . Therefore , those who occupied military flats in GPE before the war have as a rule been required to give up their rights to those flats in order to qualify for a military flat or a loan in GPE or GPE ( see sections DATE of LAW DATE ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Military Pensioners Ordinance DATE ; and sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Housing Act DATE provides that the holder of a tenancy right of unlimited duration in respect of a flat may purchase that flat under the same conditions as an occupancy right holder .


Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in the PERSON prison , a special establishment for mentally ill prisoners . He is represented before the ORG by his father , Mr Shyqyri Dybeku .

summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with this Court ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The applicant , who suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia , was convicted of voluntary homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment by a final decision of ORG . The domestic courts relied on a medical report to conclude that the applicant could stand trial . The applicant was serving his sentence in the NORP high security prison , when he complained before this ORG about the inappropriate conditions of detention , the inadequacy of the medical treatment and the unfairness of domestic proceedings .

On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in that case ( ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . It found a breach of LAW : the applicant ’s state of health was such that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the inappropriate conditions of detention and the inadequacy of the medical treatment he had received since DATE . No other violation having been found , the ORG further made general indications under LAW to the effect that the Government should “ secure appropriate conditions of detention and adequate medical treatment , in particular , for prisoners , like the applicant , who need special care owing to their state of health ” ( paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment ) .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the PERSON prison , a special establishment for mentally ill prisoners .

On DATE the PERSON special establishment informed the applicant ’s family that the applicant was under continuous supervision by doctors , nurses as well as by a psychiatrist . He was given medical treatment DATE . This was supported by extracts of medical records for a defined period of time .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s father that the applicant received psychiatric treatment in addition to medical treatment . Biochemical tests and imaging examination had also been carried out . ORG invited the father to appoint a psychiatrist of his choosing in accordance with the law .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s father that the applicant was undergoing necessary treatment at FAC in GPE . X - ray computed tomography scan ( GPE scan ) of the head as well as magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) had been carried out .

On DATE the PERSON special establishment provided an update of the applicant ’s health , stating that the applicant was quiet , not showing any psychiatric disorders , had regularly received medicines ( risperidone CARDINAL mg CARDINAL tablet , parkopan CARDINAL mg CARDINAL tablet and diazepam CARDINAL mg CARDINAL tablets ) and psychiatric treatment and had been taken to ORG in GPE , as necessary .

On DATE the PERSON special establishment confirmed to the applicant ’s father that the applicant received risperidone CARDINAL mg CARDINAL tablet and parkopan CARDINAL mg CARDINAL .

On DATE , relying on the ORG judgment ( cited above ) , the applicant sought to review his conviction .

On DATE ORG rejected the request as raising no grounds of appeal .

On an unspecified date , most likely in DATE , the applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctors , whose medical report had been relied upon by ORG in DATE for his conviction .

On DATE ORG upheld a lower court ’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctors .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his appeal was still pending .

In its CARDINAL meeting ( CARDINAL and DATE ) , ORG noted , as regards individual measures for the execution of the ORG judgment ( cited above ) , that : ( i ) in DATE the applicant had been transferred to the PERSON special establishment which offered specialised treatment for prisoners suffering from mental disorders ; ( ii ) ORG ( PERSON ) , an independent institution which also monitors the conditions of detention of prisoners , reported that the applicant had been provided with the necessary medicines and his state of health was improving ; ( iii ) no other individual measure seemed necessary in those circumstances .

In its ORG meeting ( CARDINAL and DATE ) , the Minister ’s Deputies noted , as regards individual measures for the execution of the ORG judgment ( cited above ) , that : ( i ) the applicant had been placed in appropriate conditions of detention with medical treatment adapted to his state of health ; ( ii ) ORG report of DATE confirmed the above assessment ; and ( iii ) the individual measures were thereafter connected to the implementation of general measures required to guarantee appropriate medical treatment to the applicant and to all detainees in a similar situation . The ORG Deputies’ decision of DATE noted , in so far as relevant , that :

“ CARDINAL . NORP according to the information available , the applicant ... ha[s ] currently access to the medical treatment required by [ his ] state of health ; ”

According to the decision , as regards the adoption of general measures , the Ministers’ Deputies :

“ CARDINAL . deplored nevertheless , having regard to the age of the NORP ] and the seriousness of the violations in issue , that the authorities have not yet submitted detailed information to the ORG regarding the measures taken to ensure that the PERSON ] , as well as all other detainees , would in the future be able to access medical treatment necessary for their state of health ;

urged the NORP authorities to submit to ORG , without any further delay , an updated action plan containing all the missing information including , in particular , detailed information on the legal regime and practice governing the availability of medical treatment for detainees , so as to enable ORG to assess the status of execution of these CARDINAL judgments as soon as possible . ”