Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

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

NORP The city of GPE , an administrative centre of LOC , is in the south - east of GPE on the LOC coast . Its location explains the city ’s monsoon - influenced humid continental climate with warm but DATE when the DATE precipitation reaches its maximum . More specifically , DATE ( DATE ) is rainy and foggy , DATE and DATE can be marked by typhoons and DATE is DATE .

NORP The area where the applicants live is located in LOC of GPE close to the Pionerskoye ( Sedankinskoye ) water reservoir ( Пионерское водохранилище ) near the FAC ( ORG ) river . The reservoir , constructed in DATE , contains supplies of drinking water for the city of GPE . In the Government ’s submission , on the basis of long - term observations , the floodplain of the GPE river was an area subject to periodic flooding during heavy rains when water was released from the NORP reservoir to avoid structural damage to the reservoir .

The first applicant lives in a flat which she owns in a low - rise building at QUANTITY .

The second applicant is a social tenant of a flat in a low - rise building at CARDINAL Semiradskiy Street .

The third and fourth applicants , who are relatives , live in a flat owned by the fourth applicant in a low - rise building at CARDINAL FAC .

The fifth applicant lives in a house he owns at CARDINAL Semiradskiy Street .

The sixth applicant is a social tenant of a flat in a low - rise building at TIME .

In a letter of DATE PERSON , the head of the authority in charge of the Pionerskoye reservoir – the ORG - owned enterprise “ LOC Primorskiy Region Water - and - sewage Authority ” ( государственное унитарное предприятие « Водопроводно-канализационное хозяйство юга PERSON , “ the Water Company ” ) DATE warned the acting head of ORG that the channel of the GPE river was cluttered with debris and household waste and overgrown with small trees and bushes and that this could have grave consequences given the adverse weather forecast for DATE . In particular , in the event of heavy rain ORG would have to release water from the reservoir and , in view of the poor state of the river channel , this might cause flooding over an area with a population of over CARDINAL people , as well as a railway , a highway and manufacturing plants . Mr L. requested that appropriate measures be taken to clear the channel .

On DATE ORG ( NORP по чрезвычайным ситуациям г. PERSON , “ the FAC ” ) took a decision concerning , among other things , flood prevention work in the floodplain of the GPE river . The decision stated that although the question of cleaning up the course of the GPE river was repeatedly raised DATE , no actual measures had yet been taken . It went on to say that outlet channels and the river channel itself were abundantly overgrown with small trees and bushes , cluttered with debris and household waste and blocked by unlawfully built dams and various structures which all created a threat of flooding over an area of QUANTITY , with a population of over CARDINAL people , in the event of the urgent release of a large quantity of water from the NORP reservoir . The decision called on ORG , along with ORG , to take measures to clean up and deepen the channel of the GPE river to ensure that its throughput capacity ( пропускная способность ) was CARDINAL CARDINAL cubic metres per second . The decision also ordered that the local population be apprised via the media of the possibility of the inundation of the floodplain adjacent to the GPE river in the event of urgent large - scale evacuation of water from the reservoir , and that the authority in charge of the Pionerskoye reservoir – the Water Company – restore the local early warning system to raise the alarm if there was a risk of a flood .

According to the Government , the authorities had taken a number of measures to implement the decision of DATE . In particular , in a letter of CARDINAL September CARDINAL ORG instructed the head of the FAC bridge construction crew immediately to clean the GPE river channel in the area where CARDINAL of the bridges was being built and the river channel was full of debris . In the ORG ’s submission , in the absence of information concerning the clogged - up river channel in subsequent reports , it was reasonable to assume that the FAC bridge construction crew had cleaned it in compliance with the letter of DATE .

Also , in a letter of DATE ORG urged the head of the council of horticultural cooperatives to instruct the ORG members to engage in an effort to clean up the GPE river channel and avoid littering the land around the river . The Government further referred to relevant reports attesting that in DATE and DATE and DATE work had been done to clean up the river channel . They were unable to say whether those measures helped to increase the river ’s throughput capacity to QUANTITY per second as prescribed by the decision of DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed ORG that the water level in the NORP reservoir was close to critical and that some of it would have to be evacuated . However , the GPE river channel was densely overgrown with small trees and bushes and cluttered with debris and household waste , creating a threat of flooding over a large populated area in the event of the urgent evacuation of water from the dam . The letter went on to say that , in accordance with the decision of ORG dated DATE , it was necessary for ORG to take urgent steps to clean up the GPE river channel .

In a letter of DATE ORG notified ORG that , in accordance with the latter ’s decision of DATE , work had been carried out to clean up the river channel . In particular , from DATE the bodies of CARDINAL old cars and sundry household waste had been evacuated from the river , and the population living in its floodplain had been told what to do in the event of serious flooding . The letter also stated that work to cut down trees and bushes along the river was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to earmark a certain amount from the regional budget for clean - up work on the GPE river , stating that the work would reduce the area in danger of flooding in the event of the sudden evacuation of water from the reservoir . It does not appear that this request was heeded .

On DATE a committee of officials from ORG drew up a report presenting the results of the examination of the GPE river bed . The report stated that the part of the river that fell within the CARDINAL zone under the responsibility of ORG was being kept clear , whereas the river channel and floodplain outside that zone were overgrown with bushes and trees and littered with household waste and bodies of old cars . The report also noted that owners of private houses on the river banks had narrowed the channel by piling earth into the river in an attempt to enlarge the size of their plots of land . Moreover , earth was regularly excavated and removed from the river banks , with the result that the banks crumbled and were washed away . The committee recommended that the municipal authorities clear the bushes and trees from the floodplain , deepen the channel , clear the river bed and banks of household waste and car bodies and restore the banks to their natural state .

In a decision of DATE ORG instructed the city authorities to take a number of measures to prevent emergency situations in connection with the possible flooding of rivers during DATE . It indicated , in particular , that it was necessary to verify the condition of water evacuation systems , bridges and river beds and channels , to check and activate the early warning system , to check whether rescue services were prepared for flood situations and to equip them with means of communication . It is unclear whether any such measures were taken .

On DATE at TIME a regional meteorological service forwarded a storm warning for DATE to the Primorskiy regional and the GPE city authorities . It stated that heavy rainfall of QUANTITY was expected in LOC and the city of GPE . In particular , for DATE the service forecast heavy precipitation of QUANTITY within TIME , which would continue throughout DATE on DATE and through the night . The warning also stated that there was a risk of floods on rivers in the south of the region . In the ORG ’s submission , the population had been duly forewarned about the heavy rain by the media .

On DATE , on the basis of the aforementioned warning , ORG calculated that the water inflow to the NORP reservoir , which had a maximum storage capacity of QUANTITY and which on DATE contained QUANTITY , would be QUANTITY . Having regard to these calculations , ORG started releasing QUANTITY of water per second from the reservoir .

On DATE it started raining TIME . The intensity of the rain proved to be much higher than forecast by the meteorological service DATE . The amount of rain that fell on DATE was the equivalent of DATE rainfall . In particular , within a CARDINALhour period the amount of rain that fell in the area of the Pionerskoye reservoir totalled CARDINAL to QUANTITY . The rain was heaviest QUANTITY , when QUANTITY fell .

Until TIME on DATE , water was released from the NORP reservoir at the rate of QUANTITY per second .

At TIME the Water Company increased the rate to QUANTITY .

At TIME the Water Company increased the release of water to QUANTITY per second and kept increasing it TIME . By CARDINAL the evacuation rate was QUANTITY per second .

TIME the evacuation of water remained at its maximum rate of QUANTITY .

At TIME ORG decreased the release rate to QUANTITY , then at TIME to QUANTITY , and at TIME down to QUANTITY per second .

According to the applicants , because of the urgent release of a large quantity of water from the GPE reservoir on DATE , a large area around the reservoir was instantly flooded , including the area where the applicants resided . In the ORG submission , the water arrived and rose very quickly at some point TIME .

According to the applicants , no emergency warning had been given before the flood . The Government referred to a letter of ORG of ORG in LOC , dated DATE , to the effect that at the relevant time there had been no local emergency warning system in place at the NORP reservoir .

According to the first applicant , a disabled person , on the date in question she was at home and found out about the flood from her daughter and granddaughter , who came running to her flat to help her out to a safe place . Just as they reached her home , the water started rising rapidly , and by the time her relatives had helped her out onto the roof of the building , the water had reached waist level in the flat and was much deeper in the courtyard . In the first applicant ’s submission , her home and belongings , land , outhouses and CARDINAL cars were flooded .

The second applicant was not at home DATE as she was at work . Her disabled brother , who was at home during the flood , apparently later told her that at TIME water started rising from the cellar and within TIME the house was flooded . According to the second applicant , some of her belongings were washed out of the house and some damaged by the water , which remained in the house for some time .

The third applicant was at home with her DATE son when the flat was instantly flooded . She managed to dress the boy and to escape , wading breast - deep to a nearby motorway , which at that point had not yet been flooded ; from there she took a bus to a safe place . Soon after the third applicant had left , all motorways in the vicinity were submerged and the public transport lines disrupted . In the third applicant ’s submission , her property was severely damaged by the flood .

The fourth applicant , the third applicant ’s mother - in - law , was at work when the flood occurred . She returned home in TIME and , according to her , suffered severe distress when she found her daughter - in - law and grandson missing and her home and possessions ruined .

The fifth applicant was at work when the flood occurred . His son , A. B. , who had been at home at the time , told him what had happened . According to PERSON , at around TIME he heard the sound of seething water in the cellar and then saw water running from the street into the cellar . He looked out into the courtyard and realised that the water level was rising fast . He tried to leave but was unable to open the front door because the water in the street was already QUANTITY high . PERSON then jumped through a window into the flooded street , where the water was above shoulder level . He swam to a nearby shed , through seething water among household belongings , planks , logs and other litter . He managed to climb onto the roof of the shed and saw the surging water destroy sheds and fences , while people screaming in panic swam to any elevated places they could reach . According to the fifth applicant , when he returned home in TIME the water had already subsided . In his submission , his house and its contents and his land , outhouses and car were all damaged by the water .

The sixth applicant and her CARDINAL-year - old son were at home when the flood began . They opened the door to the street and their home was instantly flooded with water . They rushed out into the street , where within TIME the water had risen to breast height . According to the sixth applicant , she was in a state of shock , as she could not swim . Her son swam away and brought a ladder , which enabled them to climb onto the roof of a garage . In the sixth applicant ’s submission , her house and belongings , land and outhouses were all flooded .

As far as can be ascertained from the parties’ submissions , the water in the first CARDINAL ORG flats reached a height of QUANTITY ; in the fifth applicant ’s home the level was between CARDINAL and QUANTITY and in the sixth applicant ’s flat , QUANTITY . According to the applicants , the water remained at those levels for DATE .

According to the applicants , no evacuation of the population from the flooded area had been organised following the flood of DATE . In their submission , they had had to find their own way to safety , and subsequently to cope with the consequences of the flooding on their own .

The documents submitted by the Government indicate that by a decision of DATE ORG ordered that a number of rescue measures be carried out . A similar decision was taken on DATE by ORG of the Primorskiy Region .

According to the Government , those affected by the flood had been evacuated and provided with food and accommodation at temporary accommodation centres . Also , staff from various rescue services had been sent to the flooded area .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG reported to ORG on the measures taken in the period from DATE to provide those affected by the flood and the personnel engaged in the rescue operation with food and drinking water .

On DATE the FAC prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal investigation in connection with the flood of DATE . At some point criminal proceedings were brought against PERSON , the director of ORG , on suspicion of his having committed an offence punishable under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( professional negligence ) . The case was assigned the number DATE .

By CARDINAL decisions of DATE the investigator in charge declared the first applicant both victim and civil claimant in the case . It appears that at some point the second , fourth , fifth and sixth applicants were also granted victim status . The sixth and fifth applicants were informed of the relevant decisions in letters from ORG of the ORG dated DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the investigator in charge inspected the scene of the incident at the first applicant ’s domicile and questioned her . The first applicant stated that she had spent DATE at home . It had been raining but at first there had been no water in the courtyard . At TIME a wave of water had swept in from the direction of the Pionerskoye reservoir and within TIME the water level had risen to QUANTITY . The first applicant said that there had been no prior warning of any evacuation of water from the NORP reservoir . She further stated that she had been living in her flat for DATE and had never been warned that the flat was located in a flood zone . This was the first time that such large - scale flooding had happened . She also listed the property lost in the flood and indicated its value .

On DATE the investigator in charge inspected the scene of the flooding at the fifth applicant ’s domicile . The ensuing report attested , in particular , to the presence of traces on the walls at a height of QUANTITY , left by water which had remained in the LOC for a prolonged period . The investigator also questioned the fifth applicant , who stated that he had been away from home when the flooding had occurred and had been informed of the event by his son . DATE he had returned home at TIME and the water had already subsided . The fifth applicant also said that there had been no prior warning of any evacuation of water from the NORP reservoir . He had lived in the house for DATE and had never been warned that it was located in a flood zone . The fifth applicant also listed the property lost in the flood and indicated its value .

At some point the investigating authorities questioned the second applicant , who stated that she had been living in her flat for DATE and that it was only during DATE that the building in which she lived had been regularly flooded , which she explained by the absence of proper drains along the roads and the fact that the GPE river was littered and obstructed by unauthorised structures . She explained that on DATE , at TIME , water had started rising from the cellar of the building in which she lived and filled her flat within TIME . There had been no prior warning concerning any evacuation of water from the NORP reservoir and she had not seen any officials from the district or city authorities on CARDINAL or DATE . She indicated the amount of the pecuniary damage she had suffered as a result of the flood .

The fourth applicant was also questioned as a witness and made oral statements similar to those of the second applicant .

On DATE the investigating authorities ordered that the criminal proceedings against Mr L. be discontinued owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence in his actions . According to the decision , the preliminary investigation had established that because of exceptionally heavy rains on DATE the water level in the NORP reservoir had been close to critical , with the result that there was a real risk of a dam breaking , which could have claimed numerous lives and caused extensive pecuniary damage , and that in ordering the evacuation of water from the reservoir Mr L. had acted within his competence and in full compliance with the relevant regulations and had thus prevented more extensive damage to the residents of GPE . At the same time , according to an expert report of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the main reason for the flood of DATE had been the poor state of the channel of the GPE river , and in particular the fact that it had been overgrown with trees and bushes and obstructed by various structures . On DATE the investigating authorities accordingly ordered that separate criminal proceedings be brought under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( abuse of power ) against officials of the GPE municipal and the Primorskiy regional authorities in that connection .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office of LOC of GPE ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) brought criminal proceedings in case no . DATE against officials of the GPE municipal and Primorskiy regional authorities under LAW ( abuse of power ) on suspicion on them having , in excess of their power , allocated plots of land for individual housing construction within a water protection zone of the GPE river . The case file was given the number DATE .

NORP In letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the prosecutor ’s office of LOC ( “ the regional prosecutor ’s office ” ) informed the second and fourth applicants that the investigation in case no . DATE had been repeatedly suspended owing to the lack of any evidence of a crime and then reopened , and that on the CARDINAL most recent occasions it had been suspended and resumed on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the investigating authorities discontinued the proceedings in case no . DATE , referring to the absence of evidence that a crime had been committed .

NORP The decision stated that , in accordance with an applicable governmental regulation , a water protection zone should be delimited in a city ’s general development plan or , in the absence of such a plan , should be established by a regional administrative authority . Moreover , in accordance with the relevant construction rules and regulations , construction of residential and non - residential buildings and , in particular , the allocation of plots of land for individual house building , was prohibited in water protection zones ( водоохранные зоны ) as well as in catastrophic flood hazard zones ( зоны возможного катастрофического затопления ) . These latter zones were defined as areas where water levels during a flood could reach QUANTITY and where flooding could cause death , destroy residential and non - residential buildings and disable industrial equipment .

NORP The decision noted , with reference to the findings of the investigation , that when the NORP reservoir had been built in DATE , no severe flood hazard zone had been delimited in the adjacent area as no methods existed in GPE for identifying such zones until DATE . It was stated in the decision that an attempt to identify such zones in the city of GPE had been made at some point in DATE , when an expert agency was commissioned to prepare a feasibility study on the “ Protection of GPE from Floods ” , in the context of the federal programme for the protection of territories from typhoons and floods . However , the resulting document had not been duly registered with the competent ORG authority and had thus remained ineffective and could not be taken into account in elaborating town planning restrictions . As a result , no potential flood zones or catastrophic flood hazard zones , including the GPE river valley , had ever been delimited in the city of GPE ’s general development plan .

The decision also stated that no water protection zones had ever been marked in the city ’s general development plan either . ORG , which by virtue of the aforementioned governmental regulation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been under obligation to establish such zones , had repeatedly failed to do so despite requests from the competent ORG agencies , with the result that regulations imposing town planning restrictions , particularly those restricting construction of individual houses within such zones , had remained inoperative . Not until DATE had the Governor of the Primorskiy Region finally adopted a decree establishing a water protection zone that included the GPE river valley . The decree required the GPE authorities to delimit water protection zones in the city ’s general development plan , but the instruction was not followed as it would have meant updating that plan , which in turn would have meant conducting an ecological impact assessment of the plan . According to the decision of DATE , ORG had not yet submitted the city ’s general development plan with water protection zones marked on it to ORG for impact assessment .

In the light of the above findings , the decision concluded that prior to CARDINAL September CARDINAL , when no water protection zones had been established by the Primorskiy regional authorities , any town planning restrictions concerning construction activities in such zones had been inoperative , officials of ORG could not be said to have exceeded their powers when allocating plots of land on the banks of the GPE river at that time . After that date , no plots of land had been allocated within that zone . The decision thus confirmed that all the properties on the banks of the GPE river that had been flooded on DATE , including the buildings in which the applicants lived , had been built before DATE , that is , lawfully .

It also stated that construction activities along the GPE river in the area downstream of the reservoir at present were allowed within the limits of the site where buildings already existed , that no zones where new construction was prohibited were delimited in the city of GPE ’s general development plan , that no demolition or transfer of previously constructed buildings was planned , and that the owners and leaseholders of those buildings and plots of land were entitled to use and dispose of them , and in particular to construct new buildings in the place of old ones .

NORP The decision also stated that there were no legal instruments or documents governing clean - up operations in the downstream area of the GPE river channel . Also , according to the decision , since DATE ORG for ORG in the Primorskiy Region ( “ the ORG ” ) had been making DATE inspections of the GPE river channel . The results revealed that ORG had cleared the part of the river channel near the NORP reservoir ; but the area downstream of that zone was only cleared sporadically by the people living there . The decision further stated that in view of the need to keep the channel of the GPE river clear ORG had submitted suggestions to ORG concerning measures to be taken with respect to the GPE river in DATE , DATE and DATE , including clean - up work . It did not indicate whether those suggestions had been accepted and implemented .

The decision went on to note that the LOC reservoir belonged to the regional authorities and was operated by ORG . Under domestic law , the owner of the reservoir and the body operating it were responsible for ensuring its safe exploitation . Accordingly , the authorities of LOC and ORG were under obligation to secure the safe evacuation of water from the reservoir , which meant ensuring the necessary throughput capacity of the river channel below the dam . The decision further stated that , according to the relevant governmental decree , the proper technical and sanitary maintenance of reservoirs and use of water resources obeyed rules of exploitation of reservoirs to be elaborated by the owners of the reservoirs or the bodies operating them . It was the owner of the NORP reservoir and the body operating it who were responsible for planning and carrying out measures to ensure its proper functioning .

Following the decision of DATE , the investigation remained suspended until DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office ordered that the materials of criminal case no . DATE be sent to the investigation department of LOC of GPE ( “ the district investigation department ” ) for examination , with a view to setting aside the decision of DATE by which the criminal proceedings in the case had been discontinued . The decision of CARDINAL DATE stated , in particular , that the decision of DATE had been unfounded , as the investigation had not made any assessment of the GPE authorities’ failure to clear and clean up the GPE river channel , or the failure of the GPE city and the Primorskiy regional authorities to delimit water protection and riverside zones in the city of GPE ’s general development plan , to determine the legal status of the land adjacent to the GPE river , to comply with the regulations governing the exploitation of that land and to make the necessary changes to the feasibility study on ORG from Floods ” so that it finally became operative .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the district investigation department refused to set aside the decision of DATE .

On DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office sent a similar request to the investigation department of LOC . It appears that the latter instructed the district investigation department to re - open the investigation in case no . DATE .

On DATE the district investigation department resumed the proceedings in the case .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the district investigation department discontinued the proceedings owing to the absence of evidence of a crime . A copy of this decision has not been submitted to ORG .

DATE . On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office invited the district investigation department to set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unlawful . On DATE of the submission by the Government of their latest observations in the present case in DATE , the request of CARDINAL DATE seems to have still been pending .

The Government did not submit a copy of the investigation file in case no . DATE despite the ORG ’s specific request for them to do so . They stated that the case in question was in the hands of the regional prosecutor ’s office and ORG .

It appears that CARDINAL expert examinations were carried out in the context of the investigation in case no . DATE . The results were reflected in reports dated DATE and DATE and DATE respectively . The ORG has not been provided with a copy of the report of DATE and is unaware of its contents . Nor has the ORG received a copy of the report of DATE , although the Government largely relied on that report in their submissions . The applicants have submitted a copy of the report of DATE .

In the ORG ’s submission , this report stated that because of the exceptional meteorological conditions on DATE , when the actual rainfall exceeded several times the amount forecast , it had not been possible to avoid a sudden large - scale evacuation of water from the NORP reservoir . According to the Government , the report further stated that the actions of ORG on the date in question had been in compliance with relevant regulations and correct , and in particular the water release regime chosen by ORG on DATE had been close to optimal . According to the report , on DATE TIME the evacuation of water remained at its maximum rate of QUANTITY . In the Government ’s submission , if the Pionerskoye reservoir had not existed , rainwater would have flooded to the mouth of the GPE river at a maximum rate of QUANTITY .

An expert examination of the area flooded on DATE was carried out DATE and DATE .

The resulting report , dated DATE , was entitled “ On the flooding of non - residential and residential objects in the area downstream of [ the NORP reservoir ] ... as a result of the evacuation of rainwater by the reservoir on [ DATE ] ” . It described the system for evacuating excess water from the LOC reservoir as comprising an open spillway with a floodgate situated below the normal water level , and a siphon spillway . The maximum throughput capacity of each of the CARDINAL spillways was equal to QUANTITY per second . According to the technical documentation of the Pionerskoye reservoir , excess water should normally be evacuated through the open spillway by operating the floodgate . The siphon spillway was to be activated automatically only if the water level was still rising when the floodgate was fully open .

NORP The report explained the sudden increase in the water level in the reservoir on DATE by the exceptionally heavy rain on DATE , which had been much heavier than forecast , making it necessary to evacuate water . It confirmed that the type of flooding that occurred on DATE was thought to occur only once a century .

NORP The report also noted the extensive damage caused by the flood , listing in particular the residential buildings which had been flooded near the GPE river , including those in which the applicants lived , and indicated that over much of the flooded area the water had been CARDINAL to QUANTITY deep .

DATE . The report further confirmed that the river bed was overgrown with vegetation and littered with household waste , that its course had been significantly altered by human activity and that a number of unauthorised constructions , including road bridges and footbridges , had been built , reducing its throughput capacity .

The report concluded that the staff of ORG had done well in evacuating the water from the NORP reservoir on DATE . In particular , after partially opening the floodgate of the open spillway for a short time , the staff had then opened the gate completely . However , the water evacuated had flowed down the river in the form of a wave , which had magnified its destructive effect , and the presence of debris and constructions in the floodplain had considerably contributed to raising the water level during the flood . In particular , the presence of bridges and service pipelines at some points on the GPE river had increased the water level by QUANTITY , which had been the main reason for the destruction of a road and railway bridges at the mouth of the river .

The report also stated that under the relevant planning and development rules and regulations governing urban and rural settlements , territories where residential and non - residential buildings had been constructed or were to be constructed should be protected from floods of once - a - century proportions like the one on DATE . The same regulations prohibited the construction of various buildings in catastrophic flood hazard zones .

The report went on to note that the instruction for the exploitation of the LOC reservoir made it clear that no constructions should be allowed in the area downstream of the reservoir without measures being taken to protect that area from floods . According to the city of GPE ’s general development plan , there should be no building development in the area downstream of the NORP reservoir ; any individual housing as well as recreational and industrial facilities located in that area should therefore be demolished or transferred .

NORP The report further concluded that all building development in the area downstream of the reservoir from its very beginning had been , and was being , carried out in breach of the relevant technical standards and the city of GPE ’s general development plan . It added that the constant increase in the density of constructions in the area downstream of the reservoir in the absence of any measures to protect the area from floods led to increased losses when floods occurred .

It appears that on DATE a commission of officials from ORG drew up a report presenting the results of the inspection of the flat where the third and fourth applicants lived . The report listed in detail the damaged possessions and stated that the resulting damage amounted to MONEY ( “ RUB ” , MONEY , “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE a similar report was drawn up following the inspection by the same authority of the fifth applicant ’s home . The report confirmed that the fifth applicant ’s house , its contents , the outhouses and land and CARDINAL cars had been damaged as a result of the flood , and indicated that the damage amounted to RUB MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . It also mentioned that during the flood the water in the fifth applicant ’s house had reached a level of QUANTITY .

In their reply of DATE to the third and fourth ORG complaint , ORG stated that according to the information at their disposal , the human factor had played a role in the flood of DATE , as the water had not been released from the reservoir until a critical situation had emerged where a large volume of water had to be evacuated urgently to save the dam . The letter further stated that the work done by the city authorities to clear the river channel had not helped to prevent the houses and other structures from being flooded because the evacuation of water by ORG had been sudden and massive , with the result that even special concrete waterfronts of the dam outlet channel had been broken . The letter went on to say that the reservoir was the property of the regional authorities and therefore the GPE city authorities had no power to reprimand staff of ORG . However , criminal proceedings had been brought in connection with the pecuniary damage suffered by residents of GPE and the disruption of transport lines during the heavy rains and the evacuation of water from the NORP reservoir which should lead to the punishment of those responsible . Also , ORG had filed a civil claim requesting that the actions of ORG be found unlawful . Lastly , the letter stated that compensation for pecuniary damage would only be possible from the federal budget ( a request to that effect had already been sent to ORG ) and from insurance companies .

On DATE ORG ordered that funds be allocated for restoration work in the area flooded on DATE and financial support to the victims of the flood . By a decree of DATE the Governor of ORG ordered the distribution of the funds allocated by the Government . According to the Government , the first applicant received a lump sum of RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and the remaining applicants each received RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in financial support . Also , according to the Government , the victims of the flood could each have received QUANTITY of coal with a PERCENT discount .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the Primorskiy Region informed the second applicant that so far no work had been carried out to repair the consequences of the flood .

On DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office sent a request ( представление ) to the head of ORG . An inquiry by the prosecutor ’s office had established that over DATE the city authorities had not taken any measures to remedy the consequences of the flood of DATE and , in particular , that the GPE river remained abundantly littered with household and other debris , including large fragments of concrete structures destroyed during the flood , as well as wood and silt . The prosecutor ’s office went on to say that the city authorities’ inactivity was putting the lives of the people living along the river in danger , since in view of the heavy rainfall in DATE and the need to evacuate water from the NORP reservoir , there was a real risk of a flood similar to that of DATE . The prosecutor ’s office thus urged the city authorities to carry out clean - up work and to inform it of the results within DATE .

In similar letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the regional prosecutor ’s office notified the fourth and second applicants of the status of the proceedings in cases nos . DATE and DATE and stated that , following its requests of DATE , work had been carried out to clean up the GPE river , financed by the regional budget . Also , further funds would be allocated for flood protection work in the area close to the GPE river . The fourth applicant was also informed of her right to be declared a civil claimant in criminal case no . DATE , and sought compensation for the pecuniary damage she had suffered as a result of the flood of DATE .

On DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office further replied to the fourth applicant that an expert inquiry had confirmed that the building in which she lived was in an unsound state following the flood and that repair work was necessary . According to the letter , ORG had been asked to do the work .

In a working report of CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG informed the deputy head of ORG that the residential quarters near the GPE river were regularly flooded during heavy storms because the river was full of litter and obstructed by earth dumped into it for construction work , as well as the absence or poor state of drainage along the streets in the affected area , including FAC . A series of measures were needed to protect the city of GPE from floods and , in particular , to clear the GPE river and equip the streets in the area near the river with a proper drainage system .

In a letter of DATE ORG notified the second applicant of the allocation in DATE of funds for work to repair the consequences of the flood of DATE . According to the letter , the work was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE , in reply to a complaint from the second applicant , the regional prosecutor ’s office confirmed that ORG had failed thus far to take any measures to prevent Semiradskiy Street from being flooded and , in particular , to carry out the work indicated in the working report of DATE , and that no budgetary funds had been or were being allocated for such work .

NORP In a letter of DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office further informed the second applicant that the authorities were currently working on a fortification project to protect GPE , including the area near the GPE river , from floods , that funds for the work had been assigned from the federal budget and that the work would be completed on schedule .

On DATE ORG informed the second applicant that no funds had been appropriated for clean - up work in the GPE river in the DATE budget .

The applicants brought CARDINAL separate sets of civil proceedings against LOC and GPE authorities and DATE save for the second and fifth applicants – ORG , seeking damages for their lost property as well as compensation for the anguish and distress they had suffered during the flood of DATE . They claimed that the flood had had such devastating effects mainly because of the poor state of the channel of the GPE river and the drainage system and the authorities’ failure to check and clear them . The first and second applicants reported that during the flood the water in their flats had risen to a height of QUANTITY and remained at that level for a long time . The fifth applicant reported that during the flood the water in his house had risen to a height of QUANTITY and remained at that level for TIME . The sixth applicant reported that she had been at home during the flood and that the water in her flat had risen instantaneously to above head level and remained at that level for a long time .

In CARDINAL judgments of DATE , a judgment of CARDINAL DATE and a judgment of DATE , all very similar , ORG of FAC ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed the claims brought respectively by DATE applicants . It noted , in particular , that according to the expert report of DATE the action taken by ORG in a situation of extremely heavy rainfall had been correct . The court further referred to an expert report of CARDINAL DATE which had found that the flood had been caused by the fact that the river channel had been narrowed by various structures and overgrown with vegetation , whereas the action taken by ORG in the circumstances had been correct . The court concluded that both expert reports suggested that the heavy rainfall had been the main cause of the flood .

The court also referred to the investigating authorities’ decision of DATE to discontinue criminal proceedings against PERSON , the director of ORG , owing to the absence of any constituent elements of a crime in his actions , and the decision of DATE to discontinue criminal proceedings against officials of the city of GPE and LOC for lack of evidence of a crime .

It further noted that under the relevant legislation waterways like the GPE river could not be municipally owned , so there had been no obligation on ORG to assign funds from the local budget for clean - up work on the river . The GPE authorities had requested ORG to assign money for the work from the regional budget .

The court thus concluded that no fault could be attached to any of the defendants for the damage sustained by the relevant applicants , which had been the result of force majeur . In the court ’s opinion that conclusion was corroborated by the fact that following the flood , in the period between CARDINAL and DATE , the authorities had declared an emergency situation throughout the city of GPE and not only in the flooded area near the GPE river .

On DATE the Primorskiy Regional Court ( “ the Regional Court ” ) upheld on appeal the judgment delivered in the second applicant ’s case . It confirmed that the GPE city authorities had had no obligation to clear the GPE river as it was not municipal property , and that any clean - up work should have been carried out by ORG . The court went on to say that it followed from the CARDINAL expert reports relied on by the first - instance court that even if the GPE river channel and floodplain had been cleared it could not be excluded that the residential buildings near the river , including the one in which the second applicant lived , would nevertheless have been flooded , taking into account the exceptional intensity of the rains on the date in question . The court also noted that the defendants had offered welfare aid to the victims of the flood , including the second applicant , within the amount assigned for that purpose , and that her claim regarding pecuniary damage had not been supported by any documentary evidence and was therefore unsubstantiated .

On DATE and DATE ORG also upheld on appeal the judgments given in the first , fifth and sixth ORG cases , adhering to the reasoning of the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment in the case brought by the third and fourth applicants . It based its findings on expert reports of CARDINAL May and DATE and DATE produced in the context of the investigation in criminal case no . DATE and on other materials in that criminal case .

NORP The court established that the NORP reservoir was run by ORG and was the property of the regional authorities . It also noted that since DATE a special - purpose federal programme on protection of LOC from floods had been in progress , and that it was the Primorskiy regional authorities who had requested that programme and controlled the receipt and use of the funds earmarked for that purpose . The court went on to say that the programme had envisaged extensive work to reconstruct and build flood - protection facilities in inhabited areas , including the GPE river channel , and the construction of a water evacuation channel .

The judgment further stated that all CARDINAL aforementioned expert reports had established that no measures to implement the federal programme in question had been taken . It then described in detail the poor state of the GPE river channel .

ORG . The court also referred to the decision of DATE in which ORG had urged the city authorities to clear the GPE river channel ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and to a report by a committee of officials from ORG dated DATE , which reflected on the poor state of the ORG river channel and invited the city authorities to have it cleared ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court noted that the city authorities had not adduced any evidence that any such measures had been taken , or that the authorities had ever complied with their own decisions .

The court further noted that the defendants had not adduced any evidence confirming that the GPE river was regional property and that there was any separation of powers between the regional and municipal authorities concerning the maintenance of the GPE river , which , in the court ’s opinion , had led to the inactivity and shifting of responsibility by officials at various levels . The court stressed that proper , reasonable maintenance and exploitation of the river by the authorities would have helped avoid such drastic consequences .

As regards the action taken by ORG , the court found it established that the third and fourth ORG flat had remained intact until the large - scale evacuation of water by ORG on DATE , following which the flat had been instantly flooded . The court concluded that on DATE in question ORG had evacuated a large quantity of water which had overflowed the river banks and flooded the residential area . The court rejected an argument of ORG representative that if the water had not been evacuated the reservoir would have burst its banks , which might have caused more serious damage . The court noted in this connection that in view of the weather conditions ORG should have evacuated water in smaller quantities over a longer period of time .

NORP The court thus attributed responsibility for the events of DATE to all CARDINAL defendants , stating that they should have foreseen the adverse consequences and prevented them , but failed to do so . It stated that the GPE fault in the damage caused by the flooding of residential buildings situated in the vicinity of the NORP reservoir was established by the expert reports of DATE and DATE .

As regards the third and fourth ORG claims , the court established , on the basis of the available evidence , that the fourth applicant was the owner of the damaged flat , where she was living with her husband , her son and daughter - in - law ( the third applicant ) and a grandchild . The court further examined an evaluation report drawn up in the fourth applicant ’s presence by a competent ORG authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court noted that the report was signed by the fourth applicant , who had never disputed the amount of the damage indicated therein . Moreover , she confirmed to the court that as a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the incident of DATE , she had claimed the same amount . The court therefore granted the fourth applicant ’s claim for pecuniary damage in the amount reflected in the evaluation report and found the remainder of that claim , as well as the third applicant ’s claim for pecuniary damage , unsubstantiated , given in particular the fact that the third applicant lived in the fourth applicant ’s flat , and all the damaged possessions in the flat had already been listed and the resulting damage assessed in the aforementioned evaluation report .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination . It noted , in particular , that in stating that ORG had funds at its disposal in the context of the federal programme to protect the region from floods , the first - instance court had not checked whether any funds from the federal budget had ever been allocated to the Primorskiy regional authorities and , if so , how they had been used . Therefore , in ORG opinion the lower court ’s finding concerning the regional authorities’ failure to have work carried out in the GPE river had not been based on the materials of the case .

The appellate court also noted that the fact that ORG was regionally owned , in itself , could not be regarded as engaging the responsibility of ORG , as ORG was a legal entity , and the responsibility of an owner of an entity such as ORG could be limited by relevant civil law provisions or that entity ’s constituent documents . ORG further stated that in the first - instance judgment no distinction had been made between the consequences of the exceptionally heavy rain on DATE and those of the authorities’ alleged failure to take measures to prevent flooding .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the third and fourth ORG claims in their entirety as unsubstantiated . The judgment was based essentially on the same reasoning as the judgments given in the cases brought by the first , second , fifth and sixth applicants .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . It stated that when rejecting the third and fourth ORG claims , the first - instance court concluded that the flood of DATE had been caused by a natural disaster whose extent could not have been foreseen by the defendants or avoided as a result of any purposeful action on their part .

ORG also noted that the first - instance court had duly examined and rightly dismissed the PERSON arguments to the effect that the defendants should be held liable for the destructive consequences of the evacuation of water from the reservoir . The appellate court referred to the expert report of DATE , which stated that the actions of ORG on DATE had been correct and explained the flood on that date by the presence downstream of the NORP reservoir of unauthorised constructions built in breach of the city of GPE ’s general development plan , and the presence of debris and constructions in the floodplain of the GPE river .

ORG further noted that the expert report of CARDINAL DATE stated that the cause of the flood had been the fact that the river channel was narrowed by constructions and overgrown with vegetation , and that the water evacuation strategy used by the Pionerskoye reservoir on the date in question had been optimal .

The court also quoted the expert report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had established that the vegetation obstructing the river channel had helped to reduce the force of the wave following the evacuation of water from the reservoir , and that if the water had been evacuated “ in accordance with the relevant instruction ” , the area would have been flooded regardless , but the level of water would have been CARDINAL times lower . The report also noted that ORG had not taken measures to alert the population with a view to minimising the damage caused by the flood .

ORG then concluded that all CARDINAL expert reports singled out the exceptionally heavy rain as the main reason for the flood on DATE , and that they considered it likely that flooding would have occurred irrespective of the evacuation of water by ORG .

The appellate court accordingly found that ORG had correctly concluded , on the basis of the available materials , that in view of the exceptionally heavy rainfall , the GPE

Article CARDINAL provides for damage caused to the property of an individual or of a legal entity to be compensated for in full by the person responsible for the damage . The latter may be released from the obligation to make compensation if he or she can prove that the damage was not caused through his or her fault ; however , the law may provide for compensation in respect of damage even in the absence of fault on the part of the person who caused it . Damage inflicted by lawful actions must be compensated for in the cases prescribed by law .

Article CARDINAL stipulates 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 is awarded at the expense of the federal or regional treasury .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL provide for compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Article CARDINAL states , in particular , that compensation shall be made for non - pecuniary damage irrespective of any award for pecuniary damage .

LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided in its LAW that bodies of water located entirely within the territory of a particular region of GPE which were not classified as federal property could be the property of that region . Such bodies of water could be classified as regional property by the executive authorities of the region concerned , with the approval of the federal executive authorities . Regional property was managed by the regional authorities , who were entitled to transfer some of their corresponding powers to competent federal authorities .

Under LAW regional authorities were entitled to own , use , govern and manage bodies of water in their region .

Article CARDINAL stipulated that construction , channel dredging and blasting operations in bodies of water and their water protection zones should be carried out with the approval of the ORG agency responsible for the administration and protection of water resources .

Article CARDINAL imposed an obligation on federal and regional executive authorities and water users to take measures aimed at preventing and repairing the consequences of damage to water as a result of flooding , impoundment , dam- and dyke - breaking , soil erosion , mudslide and the like .

LAW of DATE No . CARDINAL-FZ “ On Protection of Civilians and ORG from Emergencies of Natural and Industrial Origin ” ( Федеральный закон от DATE г. № CARDINAL-ФЗ « О защите населения и территорий от чрезвычайных ситуаций природного и техногенного характера ORG , “ the Protection from Emergencies Act ” ) , in its section CARDINAL , imposes an obligation on the federal , regional and local authorities to promptly and accurately inform civilians through the mass media and other channels of information about any emergency situations and the safety measures taken to protect the population and about any impending disasters and means of protection against them . The same section provides for the liability of ORG officials in the event of their failure to make such information public .

Under section CARDINAL the prevention of emergencies and the mitigation , as far as possible , of any damage and losses is a fundamental principle of emergency relief and requires that all preventive measures be taken suitably in advance .

The Federal Law of DATE No . CARDINAL-FZ “ On ORG ” ( Федеральный закон от CARDINAL DATE г. № CARDINAL « О безопасности гидротехнических сооружений ORG , “ FAC ” ) stipulates in its LAW that , where the safety of hydraulic engineering structures is concerned , the regional executive authorities : are responsible for resolving questions of safety of hydraulic engineering structures in territories under their control ; participate in the implementation of ORG policies in that sphere ; develop and implement regional programmes on the safety of hydraulic engineering structures ; ensure the safety of hydraulic engineering structures used in connection with water resources and environmental protection measures ; take decisions on locating hydraulic engineering structures and limiting their exploitation in the event of a breach of the legislation on the safety of such structures ; help to repair the consequences of accidents at hydraulic engineering structures ; and inform the population of any accident hazard at hydraulic engineering structures that might trigger an emergency situation .

Section CARDINAL lists various requirements to ensure the safety of hydraulic engineering structures , including ORG control in the matter ; establishing safety criteria in respect of hydraulic engineering structures and equipping them with appropriate technical means for permanent monitoring of their condition ; taking every possible step , in good time , to keep the risk of emergencies at hydraulic engineering structures to a minimum ; earmarking sufficient funding for measures aimed at ensuring the safety of hydraulic engineering structures ; and liability for actions ( or omissions ) that reduce the safety of hydraulic engineering structures to unacceptable levels .

Section CARDINAL lays down the obligations of owners of , and bodies operating hydraulic engineering structures . It states , in particular , that they must : ensure the observance of safety rules and standards during the construction , exploitation , repair , reconstruction , conservation , dismantling , and so on , of hydraulic engineering structures ; monitor the condition of such structures ; evaluate natural and industrial threats to them and , on the basis of the data thus obtained , regularly assess the safety of hydraulic engineering structures , including analysis of the reasons for any decrease in safety , taking into account harmful natural and industrial impacts , results of industrial and other activities and the presence of objects in river channels and adjacent areas , upstream and downstream ; develop systems for monitoring the condition of hydraulic engineering structures and take timely measures to ensure their proper functioning and prevent accidents ; maintain local emergency warning systems in a state of constant readiness to raise the alarm in the event of an accident at a hydraulic engineering structure ; inform the local population on questions concerning the safety of , and accidents at , hydraulic engineering structures ; finance measures on the exploitation of hydraulic engineering structures and preventing accidents and repairing their consequences , and so on .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are a married couple and live in GPE ( GPE ) .

In DATE , the first applicant moved from GPE to the GPE where he was employed as a dockworker until DATE , when he stopped working on account of certain mental problems apparently related to his difficulties in coping with the death of his first wife in DATE .

After having received sickness benefits for the maximum period , he was granted combined disability benefits as from DATE under ORG ( PERSON ; “ AAW ” ) and ORG ( Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering ; “ PERSON ” ) in a decision of CARDINAL DATE and on the basis of a finding of being PERCENT incapacitated for work .

At an unspecified date in DATE , the applicants and their family returned permanently to GPE , retaining the first applicant 's right to AAW / PERSON benefits .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the basis of medical examinations of the first applicant carried out on DATE by an orthopaedic surgeon , and on CARDINAL DATE by a social insurance medical specialist and a psychiatrist , ORG FAC sociale verzekeringen ; “ LISV ” ) withdrew the first applicant 's AAW / PERSON benefits as from DATE , on the basis of a finding that his incapacity for work had diminished to PERCENT for the purposes of the ORG and to PERCENT for the purposes of the ORG .

On DATE , the first applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) . On DATE , ORG requested the first applicant to submit updated information about his medical condition and the names of the doctors who were treating him .

Following a hearing held on DATE , ORG rejected this appeal on DATE . The first applicant filed a further appeal with ORG ( ORG ) .

The first applicant 's lawyer submitted the written grounds for appeal to ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG confirmed receipt of the appeal and , on DATE , informed the first applicant 's lawyer that , due to its heavy workload , it would take some time before the first applicant 's appeal could be heard . The PERSON submitted its response to the first applicant 's grounds of appeal on DATE .

On DATE , the first applicant 's case was added to ORG list of cases awaiting preparation for a hearing . On DATE , it was submitted to the presiding judge of the relevant section of ORG for entry on the case - list . On DATE , the parties were informed that a hearing had been scheduled for DATE .

On DATE , a hearing was held before ORG . At the beginning of this hearing the first applicant 's lawyer , referring to the conclusion reached by ORG that there had been a violation of LAW on account of the duration of similar proceedings in the case of ORG v. the GPE ( application no . CARDINAL , ORG 's report of DATE , unreported ) , stated to find it incomprehensible that it should take DATE before the first applicant 's case was examined before ORG . After having noted the parties ' submissions and in accordance with a request of the first applicant 's lawyer to this effect , the ORG suspended the hearing and ordered a reopening of the investigation into the first applicant 's capacity for work , finding that this investigation had been incomplete .

By letters of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , the President of ORG put a number of questions to the psychiatrist PERSON who had examined the first applicant on DATE upon the request of the former ORG Gemeenschappelijke PERSON ) . Dr PERSON submitted his reply in the form of a report on DATE . Both the LISV and the first applicant availed themselves of the opportunity to submit comments on this report . The PERSON submitted comments on DATE and the first applicant on DATE .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG put additional questions to PERSON , who replied on DATE .

On DATE , ORG informed the parties that a second hearing had been scheduled for DATE . The first applicant 's lawyer filed further written submissions to ORG on DATE .

On DATE , a second hearing was held before ORG in the course of which the first applicant complained that , given the duration of the proceedings , the reasonable time requirement under LAW had not been respected .

In its decision of DATE , ORG rejected the first applicant 's appeal and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It agreed with the PERSON and ORG that , as regards the first applicant , there were no somatic limitations such that he should be considered as being unfit to resume his work of dock worker , i.e. the work that he had done before he was declared incapacitated . As to the question whether there were limitations of a psychiatric nature , ORG accepted that the first applicant was suffering from a psychiatric disorder entailing mainly minor limitations in his social functioning . However , given the nature of the first applicant 's work , it held that this disorder was not of such nature or gravity that , on that ground , he should be regarded as being unfit for that kind of work .

As to the first applicant 's complaint that his rights under LAW had been disrespected in that the proceedings before ORG had exceeded a reasonable time , ORG held that a failure to respect the reasonable time requirement under this provision can not result in granting social security claims that are not in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and that a claim for compensation for alleged damages suffered as a result of a failure to respect this requirement under LAW should be filed with the civil judge .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr M. Romanowski , a lawyer practising in Gdańsk . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police .

On DATE the ORG decided to place the applicant in pre - trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed an armed robbery as a member of an organised criminal gang .

On DATE and DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) further extended his detention relying in particular on the risk that a heavy sentence would be imposed , which made it probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of the investigation . Moreover , the complexity of the proceedings justified keeping the applicant in detention .

Subsequently , the applicant ’s pre - trial detention was extended , inter alia , on DATE and DATE . ORG reiterated the original grounds given for his detention and held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary for securing the obtaining of evidence .

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) , upon an application from ORG ( Prokurator Okręgowy ) , further extended the applicant ’s pretrial detention . In addition to reiterating the grounds relied on previously , the court considered that the complexity of the case and the large number of coaccused justified the fear that , if released , the applicant would interfere with the course of the proper conduct of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused were indicted before ORG . The applicant was accused of having participated in an organised criminal gang , having committed CARDINAL armed robberies and having been in possession of an illegal firearm .

On DATE and DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s pretrial detention . It considered that the severity of the possible sentence justified the fear that , if released , the applicant would attempt to influence witnesses or abscond .

Afterwards , as the length of the applicant ’s detention had reached the statutory timelimit of DATE laid down in LAW of LAW ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ) , ORG applied to ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) asking for the applicant ’s detention to be extended beyond that term . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the ORG allowed the applications and extended his pretrial detention . The court reiterated the grounds given previously .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s detention was further extended . The court observed that the period of detention had not been excessive given the complexity of the case and the need to secure the proper course of the final stages of the trial .

On DATE the applicant ’s detention was further extended .

The applicant ’s numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions prolonging his detention were to no avail .

On DATE the ORG gave a judgment convicting the applicant as charged . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . The proceedings are pending and the applicant remains in detention .

DATE and DATE the applicant served a sentence of imprisonment ordered in another set of criminal proceedings .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre - trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other , so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life)

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The first applicant was born in DATE , the second applicant was born in DATE and the third applicant was born in DATE . They live in the village of GPE , LOC , in GPE .

The first and second applicants are spouses and the parents of PERSON ORG , born in DATE , Mr GPE , born in DATE , and the third applicant .

DATE the NORP federal military carried out a special “ sweeping ” operation in the village of GPE NORP .

At TIME on DATE an armed clash commenced between a group of insurgents and the NORP servicemen . The insurgents hid inside a house at FAC located in the vicinity of the applicants ' family home and fired at the military . At some point NORP servicemen killed the insurgents and started checking other houses in the area .

At that time the applicants , ORG and GPE and the first applicant 's CARDINAL daughters were inside their house . At some point a group of servicemen wearing blue camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants ' house in armoured personnel carriers ( “ APCs ” ) and entered it . The first applicant believed that the men belonged to ORG ( “ GRU ” ) . The servicemen in blue uniforms checked the PERSON ' identity papers , asked why they had been hiding insurgents and left .

Another group of armed men who had arrived in ORG vehicles entered the applicants ' house . Those men had badges with a “ B ” letter and an eagle pinned to sleeves of their camouflage uniforms . The first applicant inferred that they were members of the ORG unit ( подразделение « Вымпел » ) . They ordered the male members of the PERSON family to lie down on the floor , lined up the women next to a wall , checked the identity papers and left .

TIME a group of armed and masked men in yellow camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ' house in UAZ vehicles with illegible registration plates . The first applicant peeked out of the window and saw a motorcade of military vehicles and several APCs parked outside his house . The servicemen in the yellow uniforms checked the identity papers of the first applicant 's sons and asked them if they knew any insurgents . The young men replied in the negative . The servicemen in yellow uniforms said that it was necessary to run a check on them , and took the third applicant and ORG and GPE away .

Shortly after the arrest of their sons the first and second applicants learned that the NORP military had established a filtration point near a poultry - house and a mill in GPE NORP . CARDINAL persons were being kept at the filtration point .

On DATE following the arrest the second applicant went to the poultry - house . Relatives of other detained persons had gathered near the building to wait for news of their family members .

The servicemen started releasing the detainees . Some of them told the second applicant that her CARDINAL sons were being kept inside the poultryhouse . The second applicant waited for her sons ' release for DATE .

On DATE the third applicant was released . He had been severely beaten by the servicemen and could not walk , so he had to be carried home . His body was bruised . Once at home , the third applicant said that for DATE the servicemen had questioned and beaten him . Before the release they had made him sign a declaration stating that he had no complaints . The third applicant had not seen his brothers after the arrest but knew that they had been transferred to the mill where the headquarters of the federal military was located .

On DATE the special “ sweeping ” operation ended .

On DATE the first and second applicants went to the village of ORG of LOC and examined CARDINAL dead bodies , which had been burned from head to waist . The first and second applicants recognised their sons ' shoes and trousers and identified the dead as ORG and GPE . On DATE the first and second applicants took the bodies home .

On DATE the NORP district temporary department of the interior ( “ the NORP ” ) received a report that CARDINAL men had been killed by servicemen of military unit no . CARDINAL in crossfire on the outskirts of GPE . Upon inspection of the scene of the incident CARDINAL charred corpses and CARDINAL AK-CARDINAL machine guns were discovered in the basement of a destroyed house .

The first applicant did not apply to a prosecutor 's office after the discovery of ORG and ORG dead bodies as he feared for the safety of the third applicant .

On DATE the NORP district department of the interior ( “ the ROVD ” ) received a report that CARDINAL charred male corpses had been discovered in the basement of a house on the outskirts of ORG . CARDINAL of those bodies were identified as ORG and GPE .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of LOC ( “ the district prosecutor 's office ” ) instituted an investigation into the killing of ORG and GPE under LAW of LAW ( aggravated murder ) . The case was assigned the number DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office issued a report on the investigation , stating the following :

“ At TIME on DATE the LOC department of the interior received a report that CARDINAL charred male corpses had been found in the basement of a residential house on the outskirts of the village of ORG .

Later the CARDINAL bodies were identified as villagers of PERSON , namely , ORG , born in DATE , GPE , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE .

An investigation into this matter was opened by the NORP district prosecutor 's office in criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW of LAW Criminal Code on DATE . ”

On DATE the head of the local administration of GPE NORP described the circumstances of the LOC brothers ' arrest and the discovery of their dead bodies to the district prosecutor 's office . He stated that on DATE the servicemen of ORG had carried out a special operation to arrest insurgents , that the latter had opened fire and then had been killed and that ORG and PERSON had been taken away by the servicemen and then killed . The head of the local administration also mentioned that ORG and PERSON had not participated in illegal armed groups .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the prosecutor 's office of GPE about the ineffectiveness of the investigation in case no . DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE informed the applicants that on an unspecified date the investigation had been resumed and was pending before the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the first applicant was summoned to the district prosecutor 's office . An investigator told him that the servicemen had made a deposition explaining that his sons had been killed as they had been inside a house from which insurgents had fired at military vehicles . However , according to a statement by the owners of that house , the servicemen had killed the PERSON brothers , brought their bodies to the village 's outskirts and set the house on fire . The first applicant read that statement , but was not allowed to make a copy of it .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office suspended the investigation in case no . CARDINAL for failure to identify those responsible .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of ORG forwarded the first applicant 's complaint to the prosecutor 's office of GPE stating that an investigation into the killing of ORG and PERSON was not pending before them .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE forwarded the first applicant 's complaint to the district prosecutor 's office and ordered that the investigation be carried out more vigorously .

On DATE the acting head of the department for supervision on criminal investigations of the prosecutor 's office of GPE informed the first applicant of the following :

“ The prosecutor 's office of GPE studied the criminal case materials , quashed the decision of the investigator of the LOC prosecutor 's office on suspension [ of the investigation ] and resumed the investigation .

You should address all further queries related to the investigation of this case to the NORP district prosecutor 's office ” .

On DATE the PERSON requested an update on the progress of case no . DATE from the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no . DATE had been suspended on DATE for failure to identify those responsible and noted that the first applicant had the right to study non - classified documents from the case file on the district prosecutor 's office 's LOC .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office received from the SRJI a request for access to the entire investigation file in case no . DATE .

On DATE the request was dismissed since pursuant to domestic laws a victim had no right to study a case file in its entirety prior to the completion of the investigation .

On DATE the applicants were informed that the investigation had been resumed .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office instituted an investigation in case no . CARDINAL into the killings of the CARDINAL men found dead in ORG under LAW of LAW ( aggravated murder ) .

The investigators inspected the scene of incident and found inside a CARDINAL - demolished house CARDINAL seriously burned dead bodies showing signs of a violent death , CARDINAL ORG machine guns with spent cartridges and a ORG mine . Next to the house they found CARDINAL shells for CARDINAL calibre bullets and CARDINAL shells for CARDINAL PERSON calibre bullets .

On DATE the bodies were transferred to the deputy head of the ORG local administration , Mr M.

On DATE the investigators questioned a serviceman from military unit no . CARDINAL , PERSON , who stated the following . On DATE a group of servicemen had been travelling past ORG when they were fired at from machine guns . Their senior officer had decided to block off the area from which the firing had come ; the servicemen had fired back . Then a storm unit had moved forward and found CARDINAL charred corpses in the ruins , CARDINAL machine guns and a mine . Some servicemen had stayed at the scene of incident , and others had gone to ORG to bring in investigators .

On the same date Mr PERSON was questioned and stated that on DATE he had heard sounds of an explosion and machine - gun fire . Then some servicemen had come to his office and told him that he had been called out by the military commander of LOC . They had arrived at the CARDINAL - demolished house owned by PERSON . The servicemen had told PERSON that they had discovered CARDINAL charred corpses . He had not seen the bodies himself .

On DATE an officer of military unit no . CARDINAL ( his name has not been disclosed ) was questioned as a witness and stated the following . On DATE his unit had been travelling from GPE in CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers and CARDINAL lorries after having participated in the special operation carried out there . In the vicinity of ORG their vehicles had been fired at . The officer had ordered the APCs to surround those who had opened fire . CARDINAL men had run towards a red - brick building . The servicemen had surrounded the building and fired back . At some point the servicemen had sent CARDINAL missiles from a grenade launcher ; the building had been set on fire . The officer 's subordinates had taken CARDINAL machine guns out of the building and left as they had been unable to inspect the scene more closely because of the mines scattered there . The servicemen 's actions had been strictly necessary . Other servicemen from the officer 's unit were also questioned and made identical depositions .

A resident of ORG was questioned and stated that PERSON . 's house had been demolished in the course of a special operation on DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office instructed the police to find witnesses and identify the deceased , but to no avail .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office sent a letter to the NORP district prosecutor 's office , which read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ On DATE CARDINAL charred corpses of unidentified men were found in a demolished house ... in ORG . According to the statements by the servicemen of military unit no . CARDINAL , those men had been killed by them in the course of an armed clash .

The NORP district prosecutor 's office instituted criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL ...

Upon assessment of the results of an inspection of the scene of the incident it is possible to conclude that the corpses had been transferred from another place and set on fire there [ in the CARDINAL - demolished house in ORG ] . ”

On an unspecified date in DATE ( the exact date on the copy of the document at the ORG 's disposal is illegible ) the district prosecutor 's office sent a letter to the ORG and the ROVD , which read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ On DATE CARDINAL charred corpses of unidentified men were found in a demolished house ... in ORG . According to statements by the servicemen of military unit no . CARDINAL , they killed the said men in the course of an armed clash .

... There are grounds to assume that the bodies were transferred to the said place in order to stage armed resistance to hide evidence of a murder .

Accordingly , I would ask your unit to take the following investigative measures :

To identify the killed men ( they were most probably brought from PERSON , where a special operation had been taking place ) ... ”

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office suspended the investigation .

On DATE the NORP district civil registrar 's office issued death certificates in respect of ORG and PERSON , stating that they both died on DATE . Gunshot wounds to their bodies and heads were specified as the cause of the death in both cases .

In DATE ballistic expert examinations of the bullets and shells found at the scene of incident were carried out . They did not match those in the ballistic database of GPE .

DATE . On an unspecified date in DATE ( the exact date on the copy of the first page of the document at the ORG 's disposal is illegible ) the prosecutor 's office of GPE quashed the decision on suspension of the proceedings for the reason that “ the investigation [ had ] not actually been carried out , the decision on suspension [ had ] been taken by an investigator prematurely and unlawfully ” . It was noted that the bodies had not been formally identified and that the relatives of the PERSON brothers who had stated that the dead bodies belonged to their family members had not been questioned . Moreover , a post - mortem examination of the bodies had not been ordered and carried out .

It appears that at some point the proceedings were resumed .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office ordered a postmortem examination of the CARDINAL bodies to be carried out .

On DATE Mr S.Kh . , a resident of PERSON , was questioned as a witness . He stated that in DATE there had been an armed clash between the federal troops and insurgents in his village . The federal servicemen had also carried out a special “ sweeping ” operation , in the course of which his son and the CARDINAL PERSON brothers and their cousin had been arrested . The detainees had been brought to the mill where the military unit had been stationed . At the request of the local authorities the servicemen had released his son and PERSON . The CARDINAL PERSON brothers and their cousin , as well as CARDINAL other residents of GPE NORP , had not been released and their fate had been unknown . DATE , after the special operation in ORG , PERSON . had heard that CARDINAL unidentified dead bodies had been found there . Together with the ORG ' relatives , PERSON . had identified CARDINAL of the bodies as the LOC brothers and their cousin ; the fourth body had not been identified . All the CARDINAL bodies had been charred and covered in blood but Mr S.Kh . had not seen any firearm wounds on them .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in case no . DATE and questioned . He stated that on DATE the armed clash between the federal troops and insurgents had commenced in his village . The servicemen had taken away his sons and their cousin , PERSON for an identity check . On TIME of DATE his son PERSON had been released . On DATE he had been told that CARDINAL dead bodies had been found . On DATE the first applicant , together with the second applicant and PERSON . , had seen the burned bodies . The first applicant was only able to identify ORG and ORG by their clothes and shoes . Firearm wounds had been visible on the bodies .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , a sister of PERSON , who stated that her brother and his cousins had been arrested and detained in the mill . Later PERSON had been released but PERSON , GPE and ORG had been found dead .

On DATE Mr Sh . Kh . , a deputy prosecutor of the town of ORG , was questioned as a witness and stated that on DATE he had visited the scene of incident together with an investigating team . They had found CARDINAL machine guns , which had been dirty and had not been used for a while . There had been gunshot wounds on the bodies . In his opinion , the deaths had occurred TIME before his arrival .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office suspended the investigation for failure to identify those responsible .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office received a letter from the ORG ; they replied to it on DATE .

On DATE a lawyer requested the district prosecutor 's office for access to the investigation file . On DATE the request was dismissed .

In the ORG 's submission , after DATE the investigation remained suspended . No decisions to resume or suspend the investigation were taken on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the investigating unit of ORG of ORG for GPE ( “ the investigating unit ” ) resumed the investigation in case no . DATE .

On DATE the investigating unit ordered an investigating group to be set up with the participation of civilian and military prosecutors to deal with case no . DATE . The decision read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ At TIME on DATE in the village of NORP there was a skirmish between unidentified military servicemen and unidentified members of illegal armed groups . After the skirmish the unidentified servicemen kidnapped PERSON GPE , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , and GPE , born in DATE , from the house at TIME .

At TIME on DATE ( the exact time has not been established by the investigation ) the dead bodies of PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , and GPE , born in DATE , as well as that of an unidentified man , were found inside a partially constructed house on the north - east outskirts of the village of ORG .

... Having studied the case materials , [ the investigators ] established that sufficient grounds existed to assume that the crime had been committed with the participation of the servicemen of the NORP federal armed forces , which , in particular , is proven by the fact of the skirmish between the servicemen of military unit no . CARDINAL and unidentified persons . ”

On DATE an official of the investigating unit requested his hierarchical superiors to extend the term of the investigation in case no . DATE . The request read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ DATE in the village of NORP of the LOC unidentified military servicemen and officers of law - enforcement agencies [ who were ] using APCs , ORG and ORG vehicles were carrying out special operations for the identification of members of illegal armed groups . At TIME ] on DATE a shoot out started between unidentified servicemen and unidentified insurgents . After the shooting , unidentified servicemen kidnapped PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , and NORP LOC , born in DATE , from the houses at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Nuradilov Street .

At TIME on DATE ... the dead bodies of PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , and GPE , born in DATE , were discovered in ... ORG . ”

Despite the ORG 's request to the ORG to submit the entire investigation file in case no . DATE , they failed to do so . They submitted what they described as “ the main materials of the investigation file ” , sixtytwo pages of copies of documents with inconsistent numeration , among which were the following : the decision to open criminal proceedings ; the record of the scene of incident inspection ; a statement confirming that Mr PERSON took CARDINAL bodies away to bury them ; CARDINAL page of the record of Mr I. 's interview ; Mr. PERSON 's interview record ; CARDINAL page of the interview record of an officer from military unit no . CARDINAL ; copies of instructions by the investigators to the police ; an order to carry out a ballistics expert examination ; a certificate confirming that PERSON was transporting the bodies of the PERSON ; a certificate issued by the Shali ROVD on DATE ; ballistics expert examination reports ; decisions to suspend and resume the investigation ; orders to carry out medical expert examinations ; a record of PERSON . 's interview , decisions to grant victim status to the first applicant and PERSON and their interview records ; the death certificates of ORG and GPE ; a decision dismissing the request for access to the investigation file ; and a decision to compose an investigating group . The Government explained that since the investigation in case no . DATE was in progress , disclosure of all the documents would be in violation of LAW as it would run contrary to the interests of the parties to the proceedings .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .