Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, six month period);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 8;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants are residents of the town of ORG in GPE .

At the material time all the applicants lived at various addresses in ORG .

The first applicant lived with her family in a block of flats at CARDINAL FAC .

According to the second applicant , she had owned a private house at CARDINAL NORP Street . In support of her submission , the second applicant adduced a certificate from ORG ( aдминистрация г. PERSON ) , dated DATE , stating that she had lived on real estate measuring QUANTITY at CARDINAL NORP Street . The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in GPE in DATE . It did not specify whether the second applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate .

According to the third applicant , she had lived with her husband and children in a private house at TIME . She adduced an extract from a housing inventory ( похозяйственная книга ) issued by ORG on DATE , stating that she had real estate at CARDINAL FAC and that the property , measuring QUANTITY , had been built or acquired in DATE .

According to the fourth applicant , he had lived with his family in a private house at FAC . He submitted a certificate from ORG , dated DATE , stating that he had lived on real estate measuring QUANTITY at LOC . The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in GPE in DATE . It did not specify whether the fourth applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate . The fourth applicant also adduced an extract from a housing inventory issued by ORG on DATE , stating that he had real estate at CARDINAL FAC and that the property , measuring QUANTITY , had been built or acquired in DATE .

According to the fifth applicant , he had lived with his family in a private house at CARDINAL NORP Street . He submitted a certificate issued by ORG on an unspecified date in DATE , stating that he had lived on real estate measuring QUANTITY at CARDINAL Dostoyevskiy Street . The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in GPE in DATE . It did not specify whether the fifth applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate .

According to the sixth applicant , he had lived with his family in a private house at FAC . He submitted a certificate from ORG , dated DATE , stating that he had lived on real estate measuring QUANTITY at FAC . The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in GPE in DATE . It did not specify whether the sixth applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate . The sixth applicant also adduced an extract from a housing inventory issued by ORG on DATE , stating that he had real estate at CARDINAL FAC and that the property , measuring QUANTITY , had been built or acquired in DATE .

The seventh to thirteenth applicants are relatives . The seventh applicant is a brother of Mr PERSON and the husband of the eighth applicant . The ninth applicant is Mr PERSON Tseltsayev ’s widow , and the tenth and twelfth applicants are their children . The eleventh and thirteenth applicants are Mr Vakha Tseltsayev ’s children from a previous marriage . According to them , they all lived at CARDINAL NORP Street . The seventh applicant submitted a certificate from ORG , dated DATE , stating that property measuring QUANTITY at CARDINAL Dostoyevskiy Street had been damaged as a result of the military actions in GPE in DATE . The certificate did not specify whether the seventh applicant had any property rights in respect of that real estate . The seventh applicant also adduced an extract from a housing inventory issued by ORG on DATE , stating that he had real estate at CARDINAL FAC and that this property , measuring QUANTITY , had been built or acquired in DATE .

DATE applicants are relatives . DATE applicants are spouses , and the parents of PERSON and of DATE applicants . The eighteenth applicant is the fourteenth applicant ’s nephew , and DATE applicant is the fourteenth applicant ’s brother . According to them , they all lived in a private house at TIME . The fourteenth applicant submitted a certificate from ORG , dated DATE , stating that property measuring QUANTITY at LOC , had been damaged as a result of the military actions in GPE in DATE . The certificate did not specify whether the fourteenth applicant had any property rights in respect of that real estate . The fourteenth applicant also adduced an extract from a housing inventory issued by ORG on DATE , which stated that he had real estate at CARDINAL FAC and that the property , measuring QUANTITY , had been built or acquired in DATE .

In DATE ORG commenced a counter - terrorism operation in GPE .

On DATE the federal military air forces attacked the town of ORG . CARDINAL of the bombs hit the block of flats at CARDINAL FAC , resulting in its complete destruction and human casualties . In particular , CARDINAL residents of the block of flats , including the first applicant ’s husband , Mr PERSON , and her brother , Mr PERSON , were killed , and CARDINAL residents , including the first applicant and her CARDINAL minor children were wounded .

On DATE the first applicant and her CARDINAL children were issued with a medical certificate confirming that they had sought and obtained medical assistance in connection with their multiple shrapnel wounds .

On DATE ORG again came under aerial attack by the federal forces . The bombing resulted in the deaths of CARDINAL people and injuries to QUANTITY people , including DATE applicants , the destruction of QUANTITY houses and damage to CARDINAL others .

Those killed were :

( a ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , the third applicant ’s husband ;

( b ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , the fourth applicant ’s son ;

( c ) Ms Aminat Abubakarova , born in DATE , the fifth applicant ’s mother ;

( d ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , the sixth applicant ’s son ;

( e ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , a relative of the seventh to thirteenth applicants ( see annex II ) ;

( f ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , a relative of DATE applicants ( see annex II ) .

The destroyed and damaged buildings included :

( a ) the house at CARDINAL NORP Street in which the second applicant lived ;

( b ) the house at TIME in which the third applicant lived ;

( c ) the house at TIME in which the fourth applicant lived ;

( d ) the house at DATE NORP Street in which the fifth applicant lived ;

( e ) the house at DATE FAC in which the sixth applicant lived ;

( f ) the house at DATE NORP Street in which the seventh to thirteenth applicants lived ; and

( g ) the house at TIME in which DATE applicants lived .

On DATE applicants were admitted to ORG hospital in connection with shrapnel wounds sustained during the air strike . They both submitted medical certificates attesting to their injuries .

On DATE the tenth applicant sought and obtained medical assistance in connection with a shrapnel wound to his right shoulder sustained on DATE . An entry to that effect was made on DATE in the register of urgent medical assistance at ORG hospital .

On DATE a medical death certificate was issued in respect of the fourth applicant ’s son . It stated that he had died on DATE as a result of multiple shrapnel wounds . On DATE a similar certificate was issued to attest the death on DATE of PERSON , relative of DATE applicants , on account of multiple shrapnel wounds .

On DATE ORG issued a death certificate in respect of the sixth applicant ’s son , stating that the latter had died in ORG on DATE .

In the period DATE ORG issued death certificates in respect of the third applicant ’s husband , the fourth applicant ’s son , the fifth applicant ’s mother , the seventh to thirteenth applicants’ relative and DATE applicants’ relative . The place and date of their deaths were indicated as ORG , DATE .

According to the ORG , pursuant to Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , the NORP authorities launched a counter - terrorism operation in LOC for the disarmament and liquidation of illegal armed groups and restoration of constitutional order . The activity of the illegal armed groups was threatening public interests , State security , the territorial integrity of GPE and the lives , rights and freedoms of its citizens in GPE and some other areas of LOC .

The operation was carried out by the federal armed forces . In DATE the ORG “ LOC ” was formed under the command of General Major PERSON . In the same period ORG was created under the command of General PERSON In DATE the federal forces commenced the counter - terrorism operation in GPE .

In the ORG ’s submission , once the campaign in GPE had commenced , the authorities , via the mass - media and leaflets , ordered the illegal fighters to stop their criminal activity and lay down arms and warned the local population of the possible use of aircraft and artillery in case of the organised resistance by the illegal armed groups to the federal forces . In response , the rebel fighters offered fierce armed resistance and organised fortified defence in local settlements , prohibiting the residents from leaving their houses and using them as human shields .

According to the Government , in DATE the town of ORG was occupied by NORP extremists – Wahhabis – amounting to CARDINAL persons . In the ORG ’s submission , “ almost no local residents remained in ORG as a result of the violence applied to them by the ORG ” . The latter based their headquarters in the town and significantly fortified it . In particular , they located their command points in the central part of the town , in school no . CARDINAL and the building of the town administration and kept captives and local residents detained for refusal to collaborate with them in the basements of those buildings . In the ORG ’s submission , there was a camp of captives and slaves in the town . The illegal fighters also had a number of radio relays and television re - transmitters in the town , and they actively used that equipment for detecting movements of the federal forces . On the outskirts , the rebel fighters located their bases and a centre for subversive training , dug trenches and dugouts , filled pits with oil to be able to explode them on the approach of the federal forces , and organised numerous firing posts in residential buildings . The depth of defence extended to DATE from the outskirts towards the town centre . According to the intelligence data , the extremists were not prepared to surrender and planned violent military actions against the federal troops .

In DATE the illegal armed groups led active military actions against the federal forces , using surface - to - air missile systems and large - calibre firearms against the federal aircraft . In particular , the extremists attacked the federal aircraft from the roofs of high - rise buildings in ORG with the result that a number of federal planes and helicopters were shot down and the pilots either killed or captured . Such incidents took place on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . Also , according to the intelligence data , around DATE a new group of CARDINAL fighters arrived at ORG as reinforcements .

In those circumstances , on DATE General Major PERSON . issued order no . DATE , which in paragraph CARDINAL prescribed that the federal aircraft resources be assigned for tactical support to the ORG “ LOC ” and that the illegal GPE bases , ammunition depots and other important targets outside the reach of the federal artillery fire be destroyed by pinpoint aerial strikes .

On DATE , pursuant to that order , CARDINAL military SU-CARDINAL M planes belonging to military unit no . DATE , each laden with CARDINAL high - explosive fragmentation aerial bombs of calibre QUANTITY , at TIME and TIME carried out strikes on concentrations of illegal fighters QUANTITY to the east of ORG . This decision was noted down on the tactical map of ORG of ORG .

At the same time , the planes also carried out bomb strikes on the ORG bases in ORG , including those situated in school no . CARDINAL and the building of the town administration . The planes also bombed rectangle no . DATE on the eastern outskirts of ORG where , according to the ORG , residential buildings prepared for long - term defence were situated . The residential DATE comprising NORP , Mayakovskiy and Pervomayskaya Streets fell within rectangle no . DATE and the houses in which DATE applicants lived were among the buildings hit by the federal bombers .

It does not appear that the first applicant applied personally to law - enforcement agencies in connection with the attack of DATE . It can be ascertained from the documents submitted that PERSON , a former resident of ORG and a lawyer practising in GPE , complained to various public bodies about this incident on behalf of the first applicant and other victims of the attack of DATE . He described the circumstances of the strike , listed those killed and wounded and sought to have this incident duly investigated .

On DATE ORG of the Urus - Martan District ( прокуратура Урус-Мартановского района – “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) forwarded Mr PERSON ’s complaint to ORG ( временный отдел внутренних дел Урус-Мартановского района – “ the Urus - Martan VOVD ” ) for examination .

On DATE and DATE respectively ORG of ORG ( военная прокуратура Северо-Кавказского военного округа – “ the circuit military prosecutor ’s office ” ) transmitted Mr PERSON ’s complaint about the attack of CARDINAL October CARDINAL to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE ( военная прокуратура DATE ) for examination . The latter was requested to reply to Mr PERSON by DATE . On DATE the circuit military prosecutor ’s office forwarded a duplicate of Mr PERSON ’s complaint to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL . In a letter of DATE , similar to those of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the circuit military prosecutor ’s office transmitted CARDINAL more duplicate of Mr PERSON ’s complaint about the incident of CARDINAL DATE to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE , requesting it to give a reply by DATE .

In a letter of DATE ORG of GPE ( прокуратура Чеченской PERSON DATE “ the NORP prosecutor ’s office ” ) informed PERSON that they had examined his complaint concerning an air strike of DATE on a house at CARDINAL FAC , and that on DATE criminal proceedings had been brought under LAW of LAW ( aggravated deliberate destruction of , or damage to , property ) in that connection . The letter further stated that the case file had been assigned the number DATE and that the district prosecutor ’s office was carrying out an investigation into the incident .

On DATE the Urus - Martan VOVD notified Mr PERSON that the district prosecutor ’s office had opened CARDINAL criminal cases in connection with an air strike of DATE on FAC . In particular , on DATE criminal case no . DATE had been opened under LAW of LAW ( aggravated murder ) , and on DATE criminal case no . CARDINAL had been opened under LAW of LAW Criminal Code .

In a letter of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed Mr PERSON that on DATE the district prosecutor ’s office had opened criminal case no . DATE in connection with the air strike of DATE on the southern outskirts of ORG , and that the investigation was currently pending . The letter also stated that there was no evidence of any involvement in the attack of servicemen from ORG or personnel from the interior troops of ORG of the Interior .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed Mr PERSON that they had examined his complaints and , in the course of the investigation , would take into account his arguments concerning the actions of the federal servicemen during the attack of DATE . They also stated that progress reports on the course of the investigation could not be issued for private individuals .

On DATE the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL replied to Mr PERSON ’s complaint of DATE , stating , inter alia , that the block of flats at CARDINAL FAC had not been listed among the targets selected for a strike by the federal air forces , that the latter had not received any orders to carry out such a strike on DATE , and that there was no available information as to whether there had been transgression by foreign military aircraft into the airspace of GPE in DATE .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office replied to PERSON PERSON ’s complaint about the district prosecutor ’s office ’s failure to act in respect of his requests to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the bomb strike of DATE . The letter stated , in particular , that on DATE the Urus - Martan VOVD had instituted criminal proceedings under LAW of LAW Criminal Code and that at present the investigation in that case was being conducted by the district prosecutor ’s office . The letter invited Mr PERSON to send his queries concerning the course and results of the investigation to the district prosecutor ’s office .

In a letter of DATE , upon Mr PERSON ’s request , ORG furnished him with a notarised copy of eyewitness statements describing the events of DATE and certificates confirming the destruction of property at CARDINAL and CARDINAL FAC .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victims status in case no . DATE .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office sent PERSON PERSON a letter similar to that of DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed Mr PERSON that , upon his complaint concerning the bomb strike of CARDINAL October CARDINAL , criminal proceedings in case no . DATE had been instituted on DATE under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , and that on DATE this case had been transferred to the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( военная прокуратура Объединенной группы войск ) for further investigation .

In DATE Mr PERSON died and PERSON , his daughter and the applicants’ representative in the proceedings before ORG , replaced him in representing the applicants , and in particular , the first applicant , before the domestic authorities . On an unspecified date she wrote a letter to the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG enquiring , inter alia , on behalf of the first applicant about the investigation into the attack of DATE . It is unclear whether any reply followed .

According to the ORG , the law - enforcement authorities of GPE had been notified of the aerial attack of DATE firstly on DATE , when a certain PERSON filed a written complaint about the damage inflicted on his property during that incident to the district prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office , upon PERSON complaint , instituted criminal proceedings under LAW of LAW ( aggravated deliberate destruction of , or damage to property ) in connection with the infliction of damage on PERSON housing and property as a result of a bomb strike on DATE by “ an unidentified plane ” . The case file was given the number DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation in case no . CARDINAL for failure to establish those responsible . This decision was never challenged or quashed .

It appears that on DATE a certain PERSON , apparently the first applicant ’s relative , complained to ORG about the destruction of his property and the deaths and injuries inflicted on several people as a result of the bomb strike of DATE . Upon this complaint , on DATE the Urus - Martan VOVD instituted criminal proceedings under LAW of LAW . The case file was assigned the number DATE .

In the ORG ’s submission , the preliminary investigation in case no . DATE had been suspended and resumed on several occasions . On the latest occasion it was stayed on DATE owing to a failure to establish those responsible . On DATE this decision was set aside by a supervising prosecutor and the investigation in the said case was currently pending .

It does not appear that any of the applicants personally sought an investigation into the events of DATE . It can be ascertained from the adduced documents that it was PERSON who , on the ORG behalf , actively applied to various public bodies , describing in detail the consequences of the attack .

In the period DATE and DATE Mr PERSON received a number of similar letters from the commander of ORG ( командующий войсками Северо-Кавказского военного округа ) , ORG of ORG ( NORP штаб Военно-воздушных сил ) , the acting commander - in - chief of ORG ( временно исполняющий обязанности PERSON силами ) and the commander of military unit no . DATE . All of them denied any involvement of their personnel in the alleged attack of DATE on ORG , stating that the federal aircraft had not conducted any flights in the vicinity of ORG or carried out any bomb - missile strikes in DATE or later , and that there was no available information as to whether there had been transgression by foreign military aircraft into the airspace of GPE in DATE . According to the letters , air strikes were aimed only at targets which had been pre - selected and identified as military and were situated at a distance of DATE or QUANTITY kilometres from inhabited areas , and that the accuracy of military aircraft excluded any possibility of accidental striking of civilian targets . As regards Mr PERSON ’s complaints about unexploded bombs found by the residents , he was invited to apply to “ a competent body of ORG ” in the vicinity of his domicile .

A letter of an acting head of the ORG of military unit no . DATE dated DATE stated , in particular , that the aircraft of ORG of ORG and ORG ( LOC Военно-воздушных сил и противоракетной обороны ) had not attacked ORG or launched an air strike on DATE in question , since they had not possessed any information regarding any military objects in the said area which would warrant such a strike . The letter also stated that the information allegedly received by the first applicant from the military prosecutor ’s office , to the effect that on DATE CARDINAL SU-CARDINAL military aeroplanes had launched an air strike on ORG , was inaccurate .

On DATE ORG NORP President in ORG ( ORG представителя QUANTITY РФ в Южном федеральном округе ) informed PERSON that there had been no military actions in ORG in DATE , that illegal armed formations had no military aircraft or bombs and missiles in their arsenal and that in DATE no transgression of foreign military aircraft into the airspace of GPE had been detected .

In a letter of DATE the commander - in - chief of ORG also informed PERSON that , according to a register of combat air missions ( журнал учетa боевых вылетов ) and tactical map ( карта ведения боевых действий ) , on DATE aircraft of ORG had not carried out any bomb strikes at a distance of QUANTITY from the south - eastern outskirts of ORG .

It appears that on DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL decided to dispense with criminal proceedings in connection with the events of DATE , stating that there was no evidence of involvement of the federal military in the imputed offence , and that the alleged casualties and damage could have been inflicted by fighters of illegal armed formations .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the aerial attack of DATE on ORG , the killing of residents and the destruction of property , under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( e ) ( killing of CARDINAL or more persons committed in a socially dangerous manner ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of GPE . The case file was assigned the number DATE and sent to the district prosecutor ’s office for investigation .

DATE and DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended and resumed on CARDINAL occasions ( see paragraphs ORG - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office referred the file in case no . CARDINAL to the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL for further investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The latter sent the case file to the NORP prosecutor ’s office on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , in the context of civil proceedings for compensation instituted before ORG of GPE by Mr PERSON in respect of his destroyed house , the district prosecutor ’s office furnished the court with a report on the results of the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL . The document stated that on DATE an unidentified aircraft had carried out a strike on ORG , with the result that CARDINAL residents had died , CARDINAL had been wounded , CARDINAL private houses had been destroyed , and CARDINAL houses had been damaged . The NORP prosecutor ’s office had instituted criminal proceedings in this connection on DATE , in case no . CARDINAL . The events of DATE were confirmed by CARDINAL witnesses , listed in the report , and by other witnesses , a report on the inspection of the scene of the incident and another on the forensic examination , as well as by other evidence , such as fragments of exploded aerial bombs seized from the territory of Mr PERSON ’s household and a video - recording of the site of the incident , dated DATE . Finally , the report stated that , given that the illegal armed formations had no aircraft , the criminal case had been sent on CARDINAL occasions for further investigation to the military prosecutor ’s office , which had returned it on various grounds ; this had protracted the investigation and made it difficult to identify the pilots involved in the attack of DATE .

On DATE the investigation was resumed and then stayed on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

By a decision of DATE the circuit military prosecutor ’s office refused Mr PERSON ’s request to have criminal proceedings instituted against senior officers from ORG of ORG and ORG of ORG , who had allegedly provided him with false information concerning the attack of DATE . The decision referred to statements by a number of officers , who had claimed that Mr PERSON ’s allegations concerning the bombing of ORG had been thoroughly investigated on several occasions and had proved to be unsubstantiated . In particular , CARDINAL of the officers stated that he had personally examined the register of combat air missions and tactical map for the relevant period and ascertained that there had been no air strikes on the town of ORG on DATE . However , at TIME on that date high - explosive aerial bombs of calibre QUANTITY had been launched against a group of fighters located QUANTITY from the south - eastern outskirts of ORG . The decision concluded that since it had been established that the officers had provided Mr PERSON with full and true information , there were no constituent elements of a crime in their actions .

On DATE the circuit military prosecutor ’s office quashed the decision taken by the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL on DATE . The circuit military prosecutor ’s office stated , in particular , that the decision of DATE had been based on explanations by the Head of the ORG of the ORG “ LOC ” , Colonel PERSON , and an extract from the register of combat air missions , indicating coordinates which had been attacked by a pair of SU-CARDINAL planes on DATE and which had been situated at a distance of QUANTITY from ORG . The decision of DATE went on to say that an inquiry carried out in connection with Mr PERSON ’s complaint against senior high - ranking officers from ORG of ORG and ORG of ORG had established that no air strikes on the town of ORG had been planned or carried out on DATE , and that the closest area attacked by a pair of federal planes on that date had been located QUANTITY from ORG , in an area where members of illegal armed formations had been stationed . The decision concluded that in view of discrepancies in the information obtained , the inquiry could not be said to have been complete , and that therefore the decision of DATE should be set aside .

DATE . On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the proceedings in case no . CARDINAL . Thereafter in the period between DATE and DATE the investigation was stayed and resumed CARDINAL times ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the investigation into the attack of DATE had been terminated with reference to the absence of constituent elements of a crime in the actions of high - ranking military officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

It appears that Mr PERSON then unsuccessfully applied to prosecutors at various levels in an attempt to obtain a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed PERSON that the criminal proceedings in connection with the bomb strike of DATE had been discontinued on CARDINAL DATE and that a letter informing him of that decision had been sent to him on the same date .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG further wrote to PERSON that the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings in connection with the attack of DATE had been lawful and well - founded , as it had been established during the investigation that the federal aircraft had bombed fortified command points , bases and ammunition depots of the illegal armed groups rather than any residential areas of ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON complained to ORG about the refusal of the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG to furnish him with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , which prevented him from appealing against that decision in court . It is unclear whether this complaint was examined .

On DATE ORG ( Главная военная прокуратура ) transmitted Mr PERSON ’s complaints about the prosecutors to the military prosecutor of ORG for examination .

On DATE the military prosecutor of ORG informed PERSON that the case file of the investigation opened into the attack of DATE on ORG had been classified as secret , and that it was therefore impossible to provide him with any materials from the file . It also followed from the letter that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued , that Mr PERSON was entitled to institute civil proceedings , and that the case file could be submitted to a court upon the latter ’s order .

DATE . In CARDINAL letters of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed PERSON , in reply to his complaints of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , that criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the aerial attack on ORG on DATE had been discontinued on DATE in the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in the attack , and that the criminal case file was classified as secret .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG replied to PERSON complaint of CARDINAL DATE , stating that the preliminary investigation in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL had established that in DATE the town of ORG had been occupied by NORP extremists , amounting to CARDINAL persons , who had based their headquarters in the town , had fortified it and had not been prepared to surrender , and that in such circumstances the federal command had taken a decision to carry out pinpoint bomb strikes against the bases of illegal fighters in ORG .

In a letter of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG confirmed , in reply to Mr PERSON ’s complaint of DATE , that the criminal proceedings concerning the attack of DATE on ORG had been terminated . The letter also stated that the case - file materials had been classified as secret .

On an unspecified date PERSON , who replaced PERSON PERSON in representing the applicants before the domestic authorities , wrote a letter to the military prosecutor of ORG ( военный прокурор NORP группы войск ) inquiring , inter alia , on behalf of the second , third , fourth , fifth , sixth , ninth and fifteenth applicants about the investigation into the attack of DATE . It is unclear whether any reply followed .

At various times the district prosecutor ’s office granted victim status in case no . DATE to some of the applicants . In particular , the second applicant was declared a victim on DATE and a civil claimant on DATE , the third applicant was declared a victim on DATE and on DATE she was declared a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings , the fourth applicant was declared a victim on DATE , the fifth applicant was declared a victim and a civil claimant on DATE and DATE respectively , the sixth applicant was declared a victim and a civil claimant on DATE and DATE respectively , the seventh applicant was declared a victim and a civil claimant on DATE and DATE respectively , the ninth applicant was declared a victim on DATE , the tenth applicant was granted the victim status on DATE , the fourteenth applicant was declared a victim and a civil claimant on DATE and DATE respectively , the sixteenth applicant was granted the victims status on DATE , the eighteenth applicant was declared a victim on DATE and the nineteenth applicant was granted victim status on DATE .

By a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office refused PERSON requests that victim status be granted to DATE applicants , stating that under the relevant legal provisions , such status could be granted only to CARDINAL of the relatives of a deceased person , and that earlier , namely on DATE , the ninth applicant had already been declared a victim in connection with the death of Mr PERSON .

None of the applicants who lived in the houses that were destroyed or damaged during the attack of DATE brought civil proceedings for compensation . In their submission , this remedy was ineffective , as on CARDINAL May and DATE respectively the domestic courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction had dismissed as unfounded Mr PERSON ’s claim for compensation for his private house , which was destroyed in that attack ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

In DATE , following a communication to them of an application in the case of PERSON and Others ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) which concerned the federal aerial attack of DATE on ORG , the ORG produced a copy of the investigation file in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( initially no . CARDINAL ) concerning those events . The materials ran to CARDINAL pages and seemed to be a copy of the major part of the case file , if not the entire file .

In DATE , when the present application was communicated to them , the Government were invited to produce copies of the investigation files in the criminal cases opened in connection with the aerial attack of DATE on ORG . In reply , the ORG submitted documents running to CARDINAL pages from the investigation file in case no . DATE , materials running to CARDINAL pages from the investigation file in case no . DATE and documents running to CARDINAL pages in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL representing part of the materials submitted in the case of PERSON and Others . They refused to produce the entire files , stating that it would be inappropriate to do so , given that under LAW , disclosure of the documents was contrary to the interests of the investigation and could entail a breach of the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings . The Government also submitted that they had taken into account the possibility of requesting confidentiality , but noted that the ORG provided no guarantees that once in receipt of the investigation files the applicants or their representative would not disclose the materials in question to the public . According to the Government , in the absence of any possible sanctions for the applicants in the event of their disclosure of confidential information and materials , there were no guarantees as to their compliance with the Convention and the Rules of Court . In the Government ’s submission , given the large number of applications concerning the events in GPE during the counter - terrorism operation , the disclosure of the documents from criminal investigation files would be highly detrimental to the interests of the ORG and the participants in the criminal proceedings .

The materials produced , in so far as relevant , may be summarised as follows .

By a decision DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instituted criminal proceedings upon a complaint of PERSON about the destruction of his property as a result of a bomb strike on ORG on DATE . The proceedings were brought under LAW ( aggravated deliberate destruction of , or damage to property ) of LAW .

It is clear from the materials submitted that it was only the destruction of PERSON house and property that was being investigated in the context of those proceedings .

In a report of DATE an expert confirmed that metal fragments found at the scene of the incident at PERSON destroyed house were pieces of an aerial bomb that had exploded .

By a decision of DATE the Urus - Martan VOVD instituted criminal proceedings under LAW of LAW Criminal Code upon a complaint of PERSON about a federal aerial bomb strike on ORG on DATE resulting in the destruction of CARDINAL properties and inflicting of deaths on QUANTITY persons and injuries on QUANTITY persons .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Urus - Martan VOVD ordered the transfer of case no . DATE to a military prosecutor ’s office for further investigation . The decision reiterated that on DATE , during a bomb attack by the federal air forces , QUANTITY houses belonging to PERSON . PERSON and PERSON had been destroyed , QUANTITY persons had died and CARDINAL had been wounded .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE , stating that it was premature since the materials of the file contained no conclusive evidence of the federal armed forces’ involvement in the incident of DATE . The decision ordered that the case file be transferred to the district prosecutor ’s office for investigation .

A report of DATE reflected the results of an inspection of the scene of the incident at CARDINAL and CARDINAL FAC . A brief report attested that the houses were partly destroyed and stated that no photographs had been taken , or any objects found or seized during the inspection .

A decision of DATE ordered that the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE be suspended . The decision reiterated that on DATE , during a bomb attack by the federal air forces , QUANTITY houses belonging to PERSON . PERSON and PERSON had been destroyed , QUANTITY persons had died and CARDINAL had been wounded . It then stated that the term of preliminary investigation had expired and that all possible investigative actions had been performed .

In a decision of DATE a supervising prosecutor ordered the resumption of the investigation . The decision required the investigating authorities to establish and question the victims of the attack , to find and seize fragments of bombs , and to order and carry out expert examinations .

A report of DATE reflected the results of another inspection of the scene of the incident . It appears that during that inspection metal fragments – supposedly those of an explosive device – were found and seized .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office ordered an expert examination of the metal fragments found on DATE at the scene of the incident with a view to establishing whether they were pieces of an aerial bomb . It is unclear whether this expert examination was carried out and , if so , what its results were , in the absence of any documents to that effect .

It appears that at some point the criminal proceedings were discontinued and then resumed , as by a decision of DATE an investigator of the district prosecutor ’s office took up the case .

A decision of DATE granted victim status to the first applicant in connection with the death of her husband , PERSON , and injuries sustained by her and her children as a result of the bomb attack by the federal air forces on ORG on DATE . The first applicant was interviewed by the investigating authorities on DATE .

No documents concerning the period after DATE have been submitted to ORG .

By a decision of DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with Mr PERSON ’s complaint concerning a bomb strike on DATE of ORG on DATE , resulting in CARDINAL persons killed , QUANTITY wounded , QUANTITY houses destroyed and CARDINAL damaged . The proceedings were brought under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( aggravated murder ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( aggravated deliberate destruction of , or damage to property ) of GPE , and the case was transferred to the district prosecutor ’s office for investigation . The case file was given the number CARDINAL . A letter of the same date informed Mr PERSON of the aforementioned decision , without indicating its date .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office drew the attention of the district prosecutor ’s office to “ unprecedented procrastination ” of the investigation in case no . DATE . The letter stated , in particular , that for DATE the investigator in charge had not performed any investigative action , and had not questioned victims or witnesses . It instructed the district prosecutor ’s office to revive iew all the victims of the bomb strike in question , to grant them victim status and declare them civil claimants ; to question the relatives of those deceased and to grant them victim status ; to inspect the scene of the incident using photograph and video devices , and to establish and interview eyewitnesses of the events in question .

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigator in charge sought the competent prosecutor ’s authorisation for extension of the term of the preliminary investigation . The relevant decision listed the findings made by the investigation up to that time . It referred , in particular , to statements of a number of residents of DATE that had come under attack on DATE who , being eyewitnesses to the incident , insisted that the military planes had been flying at a low altitude and that the pilots could therefore have clearly seen that they were targeting a residential DATE . The decision further referred to the ORG statements to the effect that no illegal fighters had ever lived in DATE and that property occupied by the rebel fighters had been located on the outskirts of ORG and by that time had already been hit by federal bombers , and that therefore there had been no reason to bomb a residential quarter inhabited by civilians . The decision went on to note that during the inspection of the scene of the incident large metal fragments of aerial bombs had been found and that , in addition , unexploded bombs were still lying in the courtyards of a number of properties . The decision stated that the evidence obtained proved the involvement of the federal air forces in the attack of DATE , this finding being confirmed by eyewitness statements , photographs and video - recordings , evaluation reports attesting to the inflicted damage and a report on the inspection of the scene of the incident .

In a letter of DATE ( the exact date is illegible ) , the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE returned the case file to the NORP prosecutor ’s office stating that a number of formal requirements had not been complied with . The latter referred the case file to the district prosecutor ’s office on DATE ordering it to remedy the defects .

ORG . A decision of DATE by the district prosecutor ’s office ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings . It stated that all possible investigative measures had been performed but it had not been possible to establish who was responsible .

In a decision of DATE a supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded and premature . It ordered that the investigation be resumed , that eyewitnesses to the attack be questioned and that the results of medical forensic examinations and ballistic tests be included in the case file .

In a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office ordered a suspension of the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL , stating that all investigative measures indicated in the supervising prosecutor ’s decision of DATE had been carried out , but it had not been possible to establish who was responsible .

NORP In a letter of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office replied to PERSON that his request for certified copies of the decisions instituting criminal proceedings in case no . DATE and extending the term of preliminary investigation “ had no basis in law ” and therefore could not be granted . The letter also indicated that the term of the preliminary investigation into the said criminal case had been extended until DATE and that on DATE it had been sent to a military prosecutor ’s office , which had returned it on DATE because of procedural defects . The letter went on to say that ballistic tests had been ordered in the case on DATE ; however , those tests had not yet been carried out . It then noted that on DATE the investigation had been suspended , then resumed on DATE and again stayed on DATE . The letter also assured Mr PERSON that his requests in the present case would be included in the case file and taken into consideration during further investigation .

In a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office ordered that the case file be transferred to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL for further investigation . The decision stated that it had been established that the destruction of houses and other property and the deaths and injuries of residents of ORG on DATE had been due to an aerial strike by aircraft of the federal armed forces . This fact had been confirmed by witnesses and victims and by the inspection of the site of the incident , where fragments of aerial bombs and missiles had been found . The involvement of federal military personnel in that attack was obvious , since the illegal armed formations had no aircraft , and the case file therefore had to be transferred to the military prosecutor for further investigation , in order to identify the military unit and military personnel who had committed the offence in question .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL transmitted the case file to the NORP prosecutor ’s office . The letter stated that the district prosecutor ’s office ’s conclusion that on DATE ORG had come under a bomb strike was based on contradictory witness statements and had no objective confirmation . The letter pointed out , in particular , that whilst some of the witnesses had stated that they had seen planes that had allegedly carried out the strike , some other witnesses had indicated that they had not been able to see planes as on DATE in question it had been cloudy and misty . Moreover , according to the letter , there were also discrepancies in witness statements concerning the overall number of planes that had allegedly participated in the attack and their colour . The letter went on to note that the origin of the ammunition fragments seized from CARDINAL of the properties that had allegedly come under the attack on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had not been established and it had not been ascertained how it was possible for those fragments still to be found DATE after the attack . At the end , the letter stated that at the same time the command of ORG and ORG had reported that on DATE the federal aircraft had not carried out any strikes on ORG .

By a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the investigation .

A decision of DATE ordered that criminal proceedings be suspended owing to the failure to establish the alleged perpetrators and that the case file be transferred to the military prosecutor ’s office . The decision was similar to that of DATE . It stated , in particular , that the involvement of the federal aircraft in the attack had been established by eyewitness statements and results of ballistics tests , which had confirmed that fragments found on the scene of the incident had been those of artillery shells and aerial bombs . It also stated that an unexploded aerial bomb had remained on the ground near the house at CARDINAL NORP Street since the attack of DATE .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office returned case no . CARDINAL to the district prosecutor ’s office for investigation . The letter stated that upon the study of the case - file materials it had been established that the investigation had been carried out with flagrant violations of the procedural law , with the result that the military prosecutor ’s office had refused to take over the case . The letter then listed in detail the procedural breaches during the inspection of the scene of the incident and the seizure and examination of ammunition fragments found there and stated that as a result of those breaches the seized splinters could not be admitted in evidence . The letter further noted that to date no medical forensic examinations had been conducted in respect of those deceased and wounded in the attack of DATE , that those who had suffered pecuniary damage had not been declared civil claimants and that contradictions in eyewitness statements had not yet been resolved . The letter also stated that although the case had repeatedly been returned to the district prosecutor ’s office because of all those shortcomings , they had not been remedied .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the criminal proceedings .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office forwarded to Mr PERSON certified copies of decisions granting victim status to the second , fourth to seventh and fourteenth applicants and a certified copy of a decision declaring the second applicant a civil claimant . The letter also informed Mr PERSON that none of the remaining applicants had ever sought to be declared civil claimants in that case .

A decision of DATE ordered that the investigation be stayed . The decision stated briefly that all possible investigative measures had been taken but that it had not been possible to establish the alleged perpetrators .

By a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the investigation . The decision stated that , as requested by Mr PERSON , it was necessary to question as witnesses a number of high - ranking military officers who had participated in the counter - terrorism operation in GPE .

A decision of DATE ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings . It stated that after the reopening of the investigation on DATE , the investigating authorities had sent a request to interview a number of high - ranking officers , carried out an expert ’s examination of an orchard that CARDINAL of the residents had lost during the attack in question and declared CARDINAL other persons victims . Therefore , according to the decision , all possible investigative actions had been taken .

A decision of DATE set aside the decision of DATE as unfounded , stating that the instructions of the NORP prosecutor ’s office to remedy the procedural breaches had not been complied with . In particular , there had been breaches of procedural law in the seizure of ammunition fragments , which were therefore inadmissible evidence . Moreover , medical forensic examinations of those deceased and wounded had not been conducted and a number of persons who had suffered losses as a result of the incident had not been declared civil claimants in the case . Also , the contradictions in eyewitnesses’ descriptions of the attack had not been resolved . The decision thus ordered that the proceedings be resumed .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings . It listed investigative measures taken in DATE , including the seizure of splinters , ordering their expert examination , granted the status of civil claimant to the victims and concluded that all the investigative actions that had been possible in the absence of those responsible had been carried out .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE ordered that the investigation be resumed . The decision indicated that a number of investigative actions should be carried out in the case , and namely medical forensic examination of the deceased and wounded . In a letter of DATE ( the exact date is unclear ) , PERSON was informed of the recent developments in the case .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL were adjourned owing to the failure to establish the alleged perpetrators .

By a decision of DATE a prosecutor of the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG ordered that the investigation be resumed . It can be ascertained that at this stage the case was assigned the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed the district prosecutor ’s office of this decision and invited it to notify those declared victims of the reopening of the case . In another letter of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG apprised Mr PERSON of its decision to resume the investigation .

In a decision of DATE the investigator in charge sought the authorisation of a competent prosecutor to extend the term of preliminary investigation until DATE . The decision stated that a large number of investigative actions should be taken . In particular , it was necessary to question high - ranking officers in command of the counter - terrorism operation in GPE ; to identify and interview an officer in charge of the operation in GPE on DATE , an officer in command of the pilots who had carried out bomb strikes on ORG on the date in question and the pilots themselves ; to examine and , if necessary , seize relevant military documents , including a register of combat air missions and tactical maps ; to examine the materials of inquiries carried out by the military authorities in connection with Mr PERSON ’s complaints about the attack ; to conduct expert examinations , including a medical forensic examination of those deceased and wounded in the incident under investigation , and to perform other necessary investigative actions .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE terminated the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL . It provided a description of the situation in GPE and , more specifically , in the vicinity of ORG in DATE and an account of the aerial attack of DATE identical to those submitted by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The decision referred , in particular , to witness interviews of Mr LOC . and PERSON . , intelligence officers , who had carried out reconnaissance in ORG in the relevant period . They both stated that the town had been occupied by the ORG , who had significantly fortified it and prepared for long - term defence . According to them , the depth of defence extended to DATE from the outskirts towards the town centre ; the fighters had dug trenches and dugouts , filled pits with oil to be able to explode them on the approach of the federal forces , and organised numerous firing posts in residential buildings . Mr CARDINAL . also stated that the majority of the local residents had left the town , and that an insignificant number of residents remaining in ORG had been forcibly kept by the extremists who had used them as human shields . The decision also referred to statements of ORG . , a resident of ORG , who pointed out , in particular , that at the material time CARDINAL of the civilian residents had left the town because of persecutions by illegal fighters , who had detained , robbed , killed and used as human shields those residents who had shown resistance to them .

NORP The decision also quoted the conclusions of the operative and tactical expert examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to the effect that the decision to carry out the aerial strike in question had been well - founded and timely and that the relevant military authorities had taken measures to minimise casualties among civilian residents of ORG . It then concluded that there had been no elements of criminal offences punishable under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW in the actions of General Major PERSON . and General PERSON and that therefore the criminal proceedings against them should be discontinued .

In a request of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instructed ORG to establish and interview the victims of the attack of DATE , relatives of those deceased ; to grant them victim status and the status of civil claimant in the case ; to inspect carefully the scene of the incident ; to take photographs and to make a video - recording of the site , and , if possible , to seize exhibits , including fragments of bombs , to carry out ballistic tests and to perform other necessary investigative actions .

In a letter of the same date the district prosecutor ’s office requested the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL to send them material of an inquiry into Mr PERSON ’s complaint concerning the attack of DATE .

In letters of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office reminded ORG and the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL of its requests of DATE , stating that to date they had not been complied with .

Decisions taken in the period DATE granted victim status to the third to seventh , ninth , tenth , fourteenth , sixteenth , eighteenth and nineteenth applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As can be ascertained from the decisions , the said applicants were apprised of them on the same dates .

Reports of CARDINAL and DATE on the inspection of the scene of the incident described in detail the state of a number of properties that had come under the aerial attack of DATE . In particular , the reports attested to the damage inflicted on the properties and possessions inside them . They also described bomb craters on the plots of land where the properties were situated and indicated that during the inspection metal shrapnel resembling fragments of an artillery shell had been found and seized . Among the damaged properties , the reports mentioned the second applicant ’s property at CARDINAL NORP Street , the seventh applicant ’s property at CARDINAL NORP Street and the fourteenth applicant ’s property at TIME . The reports referred to the aforementioned applicants as the owners of the properties . Photographs taken during the inspection of the scene of the incident were enclosed with the reports . They represented a number of damaged properties , including those of DATE applicants .

NORP By CARDINAL similar decisions of DATE the investigator in charge ordered the seizure of metal fragments resembling pieces of an aerial bomb or an artillery shell from CARDINAL of the properties that had come under the attack of DATE .

A decision of DATE ordered an expert examination of metal fragments found at the scene of the incident with a view to establishing their origin . It does not appear that any expert examination was carried out pursuant to that decision , as on DATE the investigator in charge ordered another expert examination of those fragments . An expert report of DATE confirmed that the fragments in question were pieces of artillery shells , aerial bombs and ammunition , the origin of which it had not been possible to establish .

Reports of CARDINAL DATE attested respectively to the seizure and examination of a videotape , with a record of the results of the attack of DATE .

NORP In a decision of DATE the investigator in charge ordered a medical forensic examination with a view to establishing the cause of death of PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON as well as the degree of damage caused to the health of a number of persons wounded during the attack of DATE , including the second , tenth and sixteenth applicants .

Decisions taken in the period DATE declared DATE applicants civil claimants in the case . The said applicants each submitted to the investigating authorities a claim describing the property lost during the attack of DATE and indicating its overall value and the amount of non - pecuniary damage suffered by them . They were notified of the decisions granting them the status of civil claimant on the same dates .

In a request of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instructed the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG to interview as witnesses a number of high - ranking military officers about the circumstances of the attack of DATE . PERSON was notified of that request by a letter of the same date .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE declared the third applicant a civil claimant in the case . Decisions of DATE declared the second and fourteenth applicant civil claimants in the case . The relevant applicants were apprised of the decisions on the same dates .

Decisions of DATE ordered the seizure of pieces of shrapnel from several residents of DATE that had come under attack on DATE , the seventh and fourteenth applicants being among their number . Reports of the same date described the splinters seized .

A decision of DATE ordered that the splinters seized on DATE be included in the case file as evidence . A report of the same date described the results of the examination of those splinters by the investigator in charge .

A decision of DATE ordered an expert examination of the pieces of shrapnel seized on DATE with a view to establishing their origin .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office requested ORG to establish a competent commission to assess damage inflicted on the individual houses during the attack of DATE and to draw up evaluation reports .

In another letter of the same date the district prosecutor ’s office informed the military commander ’s office of ORG ( военный комендант Урус-Мартановского района ) that after the bomb strike of DATE CARDINAL unexploded bombs remained lying on the plots of land at CARDINAL private properties and invited the military commander ’s office to take measures to dispose of those bombs . A similar letter was sent to the military commander ’s office of GPE ( военный комендант Чеченской PERSON ) on DATE .

Decisions of DATE ordered a medical forensic examination of those wounded during the attack of DATE , including the second and eighteenth applicants .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE an expert informed the investigator in charge that a medical forensic examination could be carried out only on the basis of original medical documents and in the presence of the persons in respect of whom such examination had been ordered . The expert thus returned the orders for medical forensic examination and enclosed certificates to the investigator in charge stating that it was impossible to conduct the required examination on the basis of those documents .

On DATE the investigator in charge requested ORG hospital to adduce medical files of the CARDINAL residents of ORG killed during the incident of DATE .

According to a report of DATE , on the date in question the register of the combat air missions of the federal forces in GPE for the period between CARDINAL and DATE and the tactical map for the period CARDINAL and DATE were examined by the investigating authorities . The report then described in detail the entries made in those documents as regards the air combat missions on DATE . It also indicated that , according to those documents , ORG had not been attacked by the federal aircraft on the date in question and that the only targets hit DATE had been located at distances of CARDINAL and QUANTITY from the town .

A report of DATE reflected the result of the examination of the register of military actions of the aircraft of ORG ( журнал боевых действий авиации ORG ) for the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . According to the report , on DATE CARDINAL entries had been made in the register ; they concerned CARDINAL attacks by federal military helicopters against illegal fighters who had been located QUANTITY from ORG . There was no other information regarding the events of DATE in the register .

As can be ascertained from a report of CARDINAL DATE , which is barely legible , on DATE the investigating authorities examined the register of military actions of ORG comprising the period DATE and DATE . It appears that in the register there were no entries to the effect that any aerial strikes had been carried out on ORG on DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office forwarded to the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG medical certificates attesting the injuries received by residents of ORG during the attack of CARDINAL DATE . The letter also indicated that in ORG hospital there were no medical files of those who had been killed during the strike . It further stated that the district prosecutor ’s office was unable to send to the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG DATE splinters seized at the scene of the incident as those splinters had been sent for an expert examination and had not been given back by experts . Lastly , the letter stated that CARDINAL aerial bombs found at the scene of the incident had been destroyed by specialists .

NORP In letters of CARDINAL May and DATE the investigator in charge requested relevant military units to provide information on the identity of the pilots who had carried out bomb strikes at a distance of QUANTITY from ORG on DATE .

NORP In letters of DATE the investigator in charge requested various competent authorities to provide information as to whether the residents of ORG listed in that letter had been involved in the activities of illegal armed groups . The list of names included those killed during the attack of CARDINAL DATE as well as those who had been granted victim status in connection with that incident . On DATE ORG replied that CARDINAL persons included in the list had participated in the activities of the illegal armed groups .

NORP In CARDINAL letters of DATE the acting commander of military unit no . DATE an air - force unit that had participated in military operations in the vicinity of ORG in the relevant DATE stated in reply to the military prosecutor of ORG that it was not possible to submit their unit ’s tasking schedule ( плановая таблица ) for DATE as it had been destroyed in DATE , given that pursuant to a relevant order of ORG its storage time had been DATE . The letters went on to say that in the relevant period no register of orders received and given had been maintained , no register of combat air missions had been maintained , no register of military actions had been maintained and no tactical map had been maintained . The letters also stated that the means of objective control – testorograms and photographs – for DATE had been unavailable as they had been destroyed DATE after DATE , as prescribed in a relevant order of ORG , and no tape - recordings were available as they had only been kept for DATE . Lastly , the letters indicated that the register of the commander ’s military orders and the map for the commander ’s orders for military actions had been sent to PERSON - on - Don in DATE .

An expert report of DATE stated that the metal fragments seized on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were pieces of industrially manufactured metal objects that had been destroyed by explosion of a contact charge and that some of them might be fragments of ammunition .

A report of DATE on the examination of a video - recording of the process of excavation and destruction of unexploded aerial bombs that had remained after the attack of DATE stated that it had been established that they had been highly explosive bombs of QUANTITY calibre .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the commander of military unit no . DATE , which at the relevant time was participating in military actions in the vicinity of ORG , stated that all the documents relating to operations in DATE , and , namely , a register of orders given and received , a register of combat air missions , a register of military actions , combat orders , ORG reports on their missions and a tactical map , had been destroyed on DATE as they had lost their practical value and had had no historical or scientific value .

By a decision of DATE the investigator in charge ordered an examination by operative and tactical expert with a view to establishing whether there had been any shortcomings in the organisation and execution of a bomb strike in the vicinity of ORG on DATE on the part of the commander of the ORG “ LOC ” , General Major PERSON . , and the commander of ORG , General PERSON

A report of CARDINAL DATE gave the results of the operative and tactical experts’ examination . The experts stated that General - Major PERSON . ’s decision to carry out bomb strikes on DATE on fortified points and bases of illegal armed groups and on their radio and electronic facilities had been well - founded and timely , as at that time the town of ORG had been occupied by illegal fighters , amounting to CARDINAL persons , who had fortified it and had not been prepared to surrender and who had been reinforced with a new group of CARDINAL illegal fighters a day before the attack . According to the experts , any other methods of action by federal forces , such as a ground attack , storming , forcing out , would have led to unjustified losses among them . The experts also stated that , when organising the bomb strike in question the command of the ORG “ LOC ” had taken certain measures with a view to minimising civilian casualties . In particular , according to the report , the military authorities had opted for pinpoint strikes , which had resulted in CARDINAL people being killed and CARDINAL wounded , CARDINAL of the latter belonging to illegal armed groups . On the other hand , considerable losses had been caused to the illegal fighters who , as a result , had subsequently , on CARDINAL and DATE , surrendered the town without fighting with the result that there had been no casualties among the federal armed forces . The report thus concluded that the actions of General Major PERSON . and General PERSON had complied with all relevant instructions and regulations , including ORG , that the decision to carry out a strike on DATE had been reasonable and that the federal aircraft had been used in ORG on DATE pursuant to competent ORG decision and taking into account the existing situation and intelligence data .

The case file contains written explanations given on DATE by PERSON the Head of ORG West ” – to the prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL . According to them , during the period of CARDINAL DATE the ORG “ LOC ” had been entrusted with a mission to force out illegal armed groups from the town of ORG . In PERSON submission , in order to avoid casualties among civilian residents of ORG , the federal command had repeatedly applied to them with a request for the ORG to discontinue their resistance and leave the town and had warned the residents that otherwise the ORG would be destroyed by artillery fire and aerial attacks . Therefore , according to PERSON , the civilians residing in ORG had been warned ; however , given that the illegal fighters had not surrendered , pinpoint bomb strikes had been carried out on their bases . In PERSON submission , bomb strikes had been carried out by the military aircraft on the basis of information obtained by the latter ’s intelligence service . PERSON also noted that in DATE the federal forces had blocked ORG for further “ sweeping - up ” operations . During a witness interview of DATE PERSON stated that he could not give any explanations regarding the events of DATE , as he did not remember anything . He also stated as regards his written explanations of DATE that the signatures on that document were his , but that he did not remember that he had actually stated what was written there . He added that at present he was unable to comment on those explanations given that DATE had elapsed since the date when they had been given .

In their explanations of CARDINAL - CARDINAL July CARDINAL a number of eyewitnesses , including DATE applicants , described the attack of DATE , stating that on the date in question , approximately TIME , CARDINAL NORP military planes had arrived and that CARDINAL of them had carried out strikes outside the territory of ORG , whereas the other one had bombed DATE in which the eyewitnesses lived . The fifth applicant and PERSON , another resident of DATE that had come under the attack , also stated that the residents of ORG had not been warned about any bomb strikes .

During witness interviews in the period from DATE to CARDINAL October CARDINAL the second to seventh , ninth , tenth , fourteenth , sixteenth , eighteenth and nineteenth applicants described the circumstances of the attack of DATE . CARDINAL other residents of DATE that had come under the attack were also questioned during the period DATE and DATE and gave similar accounts of the incident in question . In the period between CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL residents , including DATE applicant , were again interviewed in connection with the incident .

In explanations of CARDINAL DATE , Mr Z. – a senior officer of military unit no . DATE stated that , according to that unit ’s tactical map , the town of ORG had not come under aerial attacks in the period DATE , and that on DATE at TIME high - explosive QUANTITY aerial bombs had been launched against a group of fighters located QUANTITY from the south - eastern outskirts of ORG . As regards the information in the register of combat air missions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON stated that the coordinates mentioned there had been situated DATE to QUANTITY from ORG . During a witness interview of CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON confirmed that he had been seconded to GPE at the material time but stated that from DATE to DATE he had been on leave outside the territory of GPE , and therefore he had never participated in the planning and organisation of the aerial attack of DATE . He added that he could not be a witness in the case concerning that incident , as he had been serving in a military unit other than that which had participated in that attack .

In a witness interview of DATE PERSON , at the material time a First Deputy Head of ORG of ORG , stated that , as far as he knew , during the counter - terrorism operation in GPE no bomb or missile strikes , or any other aerial attacks had been planned or carried out on inhabited settlements . According to PERSON , such strikes had been carried out only on pre - selected targets relating to the activities of illegal armed groups .

In his witness interview of DATE PERSON . , at the relevant time the Deputy Commander - in - Chief of ORG , stated that he had not given any orders to carry out a bomb strike on the town of ORG on DATE , and that he was unaware of any bombing of ORG by federal aircraft .

NORP During questioning of the same date PERSON . , a Deputy Head of ORG and ORG , made similar statements .

In a witness interview of DATE PERSON , a high - ranking military officer who at the material time had been seconded to GPE , stated that he knew nothing of a bomb strike on ORG on DATE and was therefore unable to provide any relevant information in that respect . He was also unable to give any explanation as regards his reply of DATE to Mr PERSON ’s complaint concerning the attack of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP In a witness interview of the same date PERSON , a high - ranking officer who at the relevant time had been seconded to GPE , stated that he knew nothing about the attack of DATE on ORG as in that period he had been in charge of operations in another area of GPE . He was unable to provide any information other than that indicated in his reply to Mr PERSON dated DATE to the effect that the federal air forces had never bombed ORG .

NORP During questioning on DATE PERSON , at the material time the Commander of ORG in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stated that he did not remember the events of DATE , as much time had elapsed since them , and that all the actions of the federal air forces for that period had been recorded in the register of combat air missions and tactical map .

NORP During questioning on DATE PERSON , a high - ranking military officer seconded to GPE at the material time , made similar statements .

On DATE and DATE the investigating authorities questioned a number of officers of the federal air forces who had taken part in military operations in the vicinity of ORG at the relevant time . CARDINAL pilots , ORG . and PERSON . , who in the relevant period had been seconded to GPE and served in military unit no . DATE , stated that in DATE they had received an order from their commander , Colonel DATE , to carry out strikes in pre - selected rectangles on targets representing illegal armed groups on the northern and north - western outskirts of ORG . According to the pilots , when carrying out the strikes they used missiles rather than aerial bombs given that the targets had been located very close to the town . The pilots stated that they had not used aerial bombs during their combat mission and had not carried out any strikes on residential quarters of ORG . They also insisted that any technical errors during the strikes , deviation from pre - selected targets and accidental striking had not been possible .

In his witness interview of DATE Mr Iv . , who in the relevant period had been seconded to GPE as an officer of ORG , stated that he had participated in deactivation of unexploded bombs that had remained , inter alia , in FAC in GPE after the attack of DATE . He confirmed that on CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL unexploded aerial bombs had been excavated and then taken away and destroyed .

NORP During questioning on CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL pilots , ORG . , ORG . , NORP and PERSON . , who at the material time had been seconded to GPE and served in military unit DATE , stated that they had performed a flight in a group of CARDINAL planes on DATE to the southern mountainous area of GPE . According to Mr Pog . , the planes had been laden with aerial bombs of calibre QUANTITY . The pilots also stated that the results of the bombing had been recorded by means of objective control devices – video recorders and photographic cameras – and after the flight had been given to a commanding officer . The pilots insisted that they had been instructed to launch bombs in an area situated at a distance of QUANTITY from any inhabited settlement and that they had never carried out any strikes on ORG . They also stated that they had never heard of any such incidents , as in that case an internal investigation should have been carried out and those responsible should have been punished .

The case file also contains witness statements of PERSON , a pilot of a federal plane that had been shot down by rebel fighters on DATE with the result that the other pilot of that plane had died and PERSON had been captured by fighters . PERSON stated that on the date in question they had been given orders to search for another federal plane that had been shot down by extremists DATE , and then described the incident of DATE .

NORP The case file contains evaluation reports ( дефектные акты ) drawn up by ORG on DATE in respect of the properties at CARDINAL , DATE and DATE NORP Street . The reports referred to the second , fifth and seventh applicants respectively as the owners of those properties and listed in detail the damage inflicted thereon .

As can be ascertained , at some point the second , fourteenth and nineteenth applicants filed with the investigating authorities a claim listing in detail their possessions lost during the bomb strike and indicating their value and the overall amount of pecuniary damage suffered .

An extract from a register of combat air missions signed by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) indicated that on DATE , CARDINAL and TIME , a pair of SU-CARDINAL planes had carried out a bomb strike in a rectangle with coordinates [ X ] and [ Y ] , that a truck with illegal fighters had been destroyed in a rectangle with coordinates [ XCARDINAL ] and [ YCARDINAL ] and that a car with illegal fighters had also been destroyed .

A telegram of CARDINAL DATE sent by a commanding officer of military unit DATE stated that in DATE the targets selected for aerial strikes included illegal GPE bases , their fortified points , their ammunition depots , and the like , that during the relevant period the residential quarter in which the applicants lived had not been selected as a target , that on DATE no pilots had been given an order to carry out a bomb strike on DATE , and that no such strike had taken place on the date in question .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that the decision of an investigator or prosecutor to dispense with or terminate criminal proceedings , and other decisions and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede ORG access to justice , may be appealed against to a district court , which is empowered to examine the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG enshrines the rule that information from the preliminary investigation may not be disclosed . Paragraph CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private lives of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission .

By virtue of LAW , if certain actions impairing an individual ’s personal non - property rights or encroaching on other incorporeal assets have caused him or her non - pecuniary damage ( physical or mental suffering ) , the court may require the perpetrator to pay pecuniary compensation for that damage .

Article CARDINAL provides that a ORG agency or a ORG official will be liable towards a citizen for damage caused by their unlawful actions or failure to act . Compensation for such damage will be awarded at the expense of the federal or regional treasury .

The Federal Law on Suppression of Terrorism of DATE ( Федеральный закон от CARDINAL июля DATE г. № DATE « О борьбе с терроризмом DATE “ the Suppression of Terrorism Act ” ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided as follows :

“ For the purposes of the present ORG the following basic concepts shall be applied :

... ‘ suppression of ORG shall refer to activities aimed at the prevention , detection , suppression and minimisation of consequences of terrorist activities ;

‘ counter - terrorism operation’ shall refer to special activities aimed at the prevention of terrorist acts , ensuring the security of individuals , neutralising terrorists and minimising the consequences of terrorist acts ;

‘ zone of a counter - terrorism operation’ shall refer to an individual terrain or water surface , means of transport , building , structure or LOC with adjacent territory where a counter - terrorism operation is conducted ; ... ”

“ On the basis of the legislation and within the limits established by it , damage may be caused to the life , health and property of terrorists , as well as to other legally protected interests , in the course of a counter - terrorism operation . However , servicemen , experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism shall be exempted from liability for such damage , in accordance with the legislation of GPE . ”

Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE “ On Measures Aimed at Restoration of Constitutional Lawfulness and Order within the Territory of the GPE ” prescribed that a group of federal forces should be created for disarmament and liquidation of illegal armed groups in the Republic . This Decree was annulled by LAW DATE .

Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE “ On Measures Aimed at Suppression of ORG within the Territory of GPE and GPE the Chechen - Ingush Conflict ” prescribed that ORG should use all means at the ORG ’s disposal to ensure the ORG ’s security , lawfulness , rights and freedoms of citizens , public order , fight against crime and disarmament of all illegal armed groups .

Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE indicated a number of measures of a general character which various NORP ministries should take for the successful implementation of Presidential Decree no . MONEY of DATE .

Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE provided , inter alia , for a lump - sum payment of MONEY ( RUB ) to the families of individuals who had died as a result of the hostilities in GPE . The Decree also stated that individuals who had incurred pecuniary losses , including those who had lost their home , should be paid compensation , and entrusted ORG with the task of making the relevant payments to those concerned .

In Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG established that residents of GPE who had lost their housing and/or other possessions during the hostilities in the Republic and who , no later than DATE , had left permanently for another region , were entitled to compensation .

Decree no . CARDINAL of the NORP President “ On Measures Aimed at Increasing the Effectiveness of ORG within the Territory of GPE of the GPE ” of DATE provided that ORG be formed in the NORP region from units and detachments of the NORP armed forces , those of the interior troops and departments of ORG of the ORG , departments of ORG , those of ORG and ORG . The decree also empowered the commander of ORG to take decisions that were binding for all the forces forming ORG .

Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE established the right of all permanent residents of GPE who had lost their housing and any possessions therein after DATE to receive compensation in the amount of RUB CARDINAL for the housing and RUB CARDINAL for the other possessions .

On DATE ORG of GPE delivered a judgment in civil proceedings brought by a Mr Dunayev , who claimed that the block of flats in which he had lived had collapsed during heavy shelling of ORG by the federal armed forces in DATE and sought compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in that connection . While acknowledging the fact that Mr PERSON ’s property , including his apartment in the block of flats , had been destroyed as a result of an attack in DATE , the court noted , inter alia , that under Articles CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW Civil Code , the ORG was liable for damage caused only by unlawful actions on the part of its agents . It further held that the military operation in GPE had been launched by virtue of relevant presidential and governmental decrees , which had been found to be constitutional by ORG and were still in force . Accordingly , the court concluded that the actions of the federal armed forces in GPE had been lawful and dismissed PERSON claim for compensation ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed a claim against ORG brought by PERSON , who stated that his house and other property had been destroyed during massive air strikes and artillery shelling of ORG by the federal armed forces in DATE and DATE and sought compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in that connection . The court acknowledged the fact that Mr GPE ’s private house and other belongings had been destroyed as a result of the hostilities in DATE . It held , however , that under LAW , the ORG was liable for damage caused only by unlawful actions on the part of its agents . It noted that the military operation in GPE had been launched by virtue of relevant presidential and governmental decrees , which had been found to be constitutional by ORG , except for CARDINAL provisions of the relevant governmental decree . In that connection the court noted that the CARDINAL provisions had never been applied to Mr GPE , and therefore no unlawful actions on the part of ORG bodies had ever taken place to warrant compensation for damage inflicted on his property . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal ( see GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

By a default judgment of DATE ORG dismissed a claim brought by PERSON against a number of federal ministries in so far as she alleged that the block of flats in which she had lived had been destroyed by a missile during an attack by the federal armed forces on ORG in DATE and sought compensation for the destroyed flat and belongings that had been in it . She also sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court noted , inter alia , that under LAW , the ORG was liable for damage caused only by unlawful actions on the part of its agents . It further found that the actions of the NORP federal troops in GPE had been lawful , as the military operation in GPE had been launched under relevant presidential and governmental decrees , which had been found to be constitutional by ORG . The court concluded that there were no grounds to grant Ms ORG ’s claim for pecuniary damage and that her claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage could not be granted either , in the absence of any fault or unlawful actions on the part of the defendants . The judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .

By a lease dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant was granted a building lease of industrial land by ORG ( “ GPE ” ) for DATE from DATE . The lease required him to erect CARDINAL buildings at his own expense for light industrial use and included an option to renew for a further twenty - one years in the following terms ( at sub - clause CARDINAL ) ) :

“ If the Lessee shall be desirous of taking a lease of the said demised premises for a further term of DATE from the expiration of the terms hereby granted and shall , not DATE nor DATE before the expiration of the said terms , give the ORG notice in writing of his desire and if he shall have paid the rents hereby reserved and shall have reasonably performed and observed the covenants , provisions and stipulations herein contained ( ... ) , then the LAW will let the demised LOC to the Lessee for the said further term of DATE ( ... ) ” .

NORP The applicant states that he had requested a DATE term in the course of negotiations but that this request was refused by GPE . The applicant was represented by solicitors when negotiating and entering into the lease .

In accordance with sub - clause CARDINAL ) of the lease the applicant gave notice to exercise the option on DATE . At this date , he was paying a ground rent of MONEY ( GBP ) per annum . He had paid GBP CARDINAL in total rent over DATE and his income from his sub - leases of the CARDINAL units was GBP CARDINAL for DATE .

By this time GPE Council ( “ GPE ” ) had become the statutory successor to GPE . On DATE , GPE acknowledged the applicant ’s notice and indicated that it would be instructing surveyors to negotiate a new rent for DATE of the term . Negotiations commenced between the parties as to renewal of the lease and a draft lease was drawn up on the basis of an increased ground rent , which the applicant states was agreed at GBP CARDINAL per annum . The applicant signed his copy of the draft and meanwhile commenced discussions with various of his tenants concerning increases of rent under their subleases . In DATE however , GPE notified the applicant that it considered that the option could not be exercised . In the subsequent proceedings , it took CARDINAL points : that the applicant was in breach of the repairing covenants in the DATE lease ; that the option was not capable of being exercised by the applicant because by granting CARDINAL subleases for terms greater than the term of the DATE lease he had assigned his interest in the units under sublease ; and that the option was ultra vires GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG for a declaration that he was entitled to the grant of the further term and for an order of specific performance to enforce his right . His application was dismissed on DATE . The judge rejected GPE claim as to breach of covenant but found in favour of GPE on their CARDINAL other objections . He noted that the ultra vires point had not been raised until relatively late in the proceedings , namely , in an affidavit lodged by GPE dated DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judge ’s decision , on the ground that the grant of the option had been beyond GPE ’s powers .

In the course of the proceedings before ORG , the applicant sought to rely upon CARDINAL separate statutory provisions , each of which he said gave GPE power to grant the option . The first was section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . This provides ( as relevant ) :

“ Where the council of a borough desire to dispose of corporate land otherwise than as aforesaid , they may , with the consent of the Minister , dispose of the land either by way of sale , exchange , mortgage , charge , demise , lease or otherwise , in such manner and on such terms and subject to such conditions ... as the Minister may approve . ”

The term “ corporate land ” is defined in section CARDINAL of LAW as :

“ ... [ L]and belonging to , or held in trust for , or to be acquired by or held in trust for , a municipal corporation otherwise than for an express statutory purpose ”

Following an examination of the history surrounding GPE ’s appropriation of the land in question , ORG concluded that it had been held by GPE for an “ express statutory purpose ” at the time of the lease and was thus not “ corporate land ” , with the result that section CARDINAL ) did not apply .

The second statutory provision upon which the applicant sought to rely was section CARDINAL of LAW , which provides :

“ A local authority may let any land which they may possess –

( a ) with the consent of the Minister , for any term ;

( b ) without the consent of the Minister , for a term not exceeding DATE . ”

NORP The crucial question on this provision was whether the power to let included the grant of an option to renew . ORG had answered this in the negative , albeit obiter dicta , in the case of Trustees of ORG v. ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL P & CR CARDINAL . A deputy High Court judge reached the same conclusion when it was directly in issue before him in DATE . ORG in the applicant ’s case referred to both of these decisions in finding that a grant of an option to renew was not the same as the exercise of a power to let . As a result , section CARDINAL did not apply so as to give GPE the power to grant the option .

Lord Justice PERSON , in summing up his judgment in ORG , observed :

“ ... I would dismiss this appeal . I do so with little satisfaction . It seems to me unjust that when public bodies misconstrue their own powers to enter into commercial transactions with unsuspecting members of the public , those bodies should be allowed to take advantage of their own errors to escape from the unlawful bargains which they have made . For a local authority to assert the illegality of its own action is an unattractive stance for it to adopt . It is the more striking when , as in this case , the transaction in question is as mundane as a building lease ; and the local authority , by taking the point against the member of the public with whom it or its predecessor contracted , thereby robs that member of the public of part of the consideration for entering into the lease . ... ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s petition for leave to appeal .

Local authorities are statutory bodies whose powers are governed by domestic legislation . The legal consequences of entry into contractual commitments beyond statutory authority were explained by ORG in the case of ORG v. ORG [ DATE ] ORG , where he stated ( at CARDINAL D - F ) :

“ Where a statutory corporation purports to enter into a contract which it is not empowered by the relevant statute to enter into , the corporation lacks the capacity to make the supposed contract . This lack of capacity means that the document and the agreement it contains do not have effect as a legal contract . It exists in fact but not in law . It is a legal nullity . The purported contract which is in truth not a contract does not confer any legal rights on either party . Neither party can sue on it . ”

He also emphasised :

“ Any third party dealing with a local authority should be aware of that fact [ of limited capacity and competence ] and of the potential legal risk . ”

He cited the old authority of LAW v. FAC ( ( DATE ) QUANTITY at p. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) :

“ ... persons who deal with corporations or societies that owe their constitution to or have their powered defined or limited by ORG , or are regulated by deeds of settlement or rules , deriving their effect more or less from Acts of ORG , are bound to know or to ascertain for themselves the nature of the constitution , and the extent of the powers of the corporation or society with which they deal . The plaintiffs and everyone else who have dealings with a building society are bound to know that such a society has no power of borrowing , except such as is conferred upon it by its rules , and if dealing with such a society they neglect or fail to ascertain whether it has the power of borrowing or whether any limited power it may have has been exceeded , they must take the consequences of their carelessness . ”

Where contracts are rendered legal nullities or void ab initio restitutionary principles may apply to require the restoration of the moneys paid under the contract ( for example , ORG v. GPE ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL AER CARDINAL ) . The application of the principles of unjust enrichment may thus provide redress in circumstances where a contract or part of a contract is void .

The statutory regime in force has changed since DATE when the lease was granted in this case . Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , where applicable , does not now prohibit the grant of an option such as was granted in this case nor does LAW DATE . Pursuant to ORG , the strictness of the principles of incapacity applying to a local authority which purports to contract beyond its statutory powers has been relaxed . LAW provides for such a contract to have effect as if the local authority had had power to enter into it and had properly exercised that power , so long as the contract has been certified in the manner set out in the LAW .