Geoffrey Valenzia;George Nicolaou;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Dr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Dr PERSON , Attorney General .

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

The applicant is the owner of a property in GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied for a permit for the purposes of developing his property . On DATE ORG ( “ LAW ” ) issued a permit “ to erect shops , dwellings and garages for private cars , subject to [ the ] conditions on form TH and as per [ the ] plans submitted and amended ” . Thus , the applicant was authorised to build “ CARDINAL floors from [ the ] highest street level ” . The permit was valid for DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for another building permit in relation to the same property .

On DATE , ORG and ORG requested the applicant to put a stop to the construction , since it was being carried out without the necessary permit .

On DATE the LAW issued a permit under certain conditions , namely “ to carry out extension of garages , shops and apartments , as per [ the ] plans submitted with [ the ] original application and [ the ] fresh plans submitted , subject to [ the ] conditions on form DATE , in accordance with departmental alignment , corner site with splay . [ The ] height of the building should not exceed CARDINAL floors ( QUANTITY ) from [ the ] highest street level ” . This permit , valid for DATE , was issued on the basis of the plans and elevations submitted . However , along with the plans , the applicant submitted a “ section drawing ” which was not in conformity with the elevations . In consequence , the maximum height of CARDINAL floors approved in the permit ( in conformity with the elevations submitted with the permit ) was illustrated differently in the section drawing , namely in a way which included an additional floor .

The applicant claims that he had started work on the proposed project .

DATE , by a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , having noted the discrepancy , the authorities decided to withdraw the said permit . The latter was replaced by another permit which ordered that the maximum height of the structure could not exceed CARDINAL floors from the level of the adjacent roads . Since the adjacent roads had different levels , according to the applicant , this alteration of the permit had the effect of reducing the proposed construction by CARDINAL storey ( allowing CARDINAL instead of CARDINAL storeys ) , as well as making the building of another block impossible .

According to the Government , the applicant constructed CARDINAL floors in excess of what was permitted .

On DATE the applicant instituted ordinary civil proceedings , arguing that the replacement of the permit of CARDINAL DATE was abusive , unlawful and ultra vires . These proceedings are still pending .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for illegal construction carried out before DATE , following the issuance of the permit of DATE . These proceedings were suspended sine die for DATE pending the outcome of civil proceedings ( mentioned above ) but were eventually resumed . The proceedings are still pending .

In DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings . He alleged a violation of LAW to LAW CARDINAL , in that , unlike in his case , permits for extensive construction and the addition of a fifth floor had been issued in respect of the buildings adjacent to his own property .

On DATE ORG in its constitutional jurisdiction rejected the applicant ’s claim in respect of an alleged interference with his right of property on the grounds of the non - exhaustion of ordinary remedies . It held that the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant could result in the revocation of the decision to withdraw the original permit and therefore sufficed as a remedy . Moreover , the aim of constitutional proceedings was not to suspend criminal proceedings which were not related to human rights issues .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . It further held that although the LAW issue was not open to examination in ordinary proceedings , a favourable outcome in such proceedings would remedy any such violation .

Until DATE building development permits were regulated by Part I of the Code of Police Laws . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that Code provided :

“ The Minister responsible for public works may , prior to the preparation , publication or approval of a scheme , order by notice in ORG the whole or any part of GPE to be a planning area ; and from the date of any such order no person shall lay out , construct or close any street , or erect any building or increase the height of or otherwise modify any existing building , or change the use of any land or building in any part of such area ( whether or not an approved scheme exists in respect thereof ) without a permit from the Minister responsible for public works who may , in his discretion , refuse the grant of a permit or , in granting it , impose such conditions as in his discretion he may deem proper . ”

The Minister responsible for public works could delegate all or any of his powers to a body known as ORG ( “ the LAW ” ) .

Section QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW provide :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If an applicant considers that conditions imposed upon a development permission , or a refusal of such a permission , is unreasonable he may , without prejudice to his right of appeal , either request the ORG or the ORG , as the case may be , to reconsider its decision or he may lodge an appeal with ORG ... A request for reconsideration shall not be made currently with an appeal . A request for reconsideration and an appeal under this sub - section , as the case may be , shall be made within DATE of receipt of the decision of the ORG or of the ORG , as the case may be . Where a request for reconsideration has been made , an appeal may be made to ORG within DATE of receipt of the decision taken in the reconsideration .

( CARDINAL ) During the reconsideration stage , the ORG or the ORG , as the case may be , may request the applicant to file fresh plans , in which case the ORG or the ORG , as the case may be , shall give reasons for such a request provided that the substance of the development shall not change and any person who has made written objections to the development in terms of LAW ) shall be informed that such fresh plans have been so filed and shall also be invited to be present at the ORG ’s or the ORG ’s sitting , as the case may be , when such application shall be discussed . Both the applicant and the objectors , if any , shall be informed of the date and time of the meeting and , if present , may address the ORG or the ORG , as the case may be , with regard to the planning matters concerning the said application . ”

The relevant sections of LAW read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ Any person who makes use , within the proper limits , of a right exercisable by him , shall not be liable for any damage which may result therefrom .

Section CARDINAL

Any person , however , shall be liable for damage which occurs through his fault .

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) A person shall be deemed to be in fault if , in his own acts , he does not use the prudence , diligence , and attention of a bonus paterfamilias .

( CARDINAL ) No person shall , in the absence of an express provision of the law , be liable for any damage caused by want of prudence , diligence , or attention in a higher degree .

Section CARDINAL

Any person who , with or without intent to injure , voluntarily or through negligence , imprudence , or want of attention , is guilty of any act or omission constituting a breach of the duty imposed by law , shall be liable for any damage resulting therefrom . ”


Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants are :

PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

PERSON , born in DATE , and

PERSON , born in DATE .

The applicants live in the town of PERSON , in GPE . The first and second applicants are the parents of PERSON Bashir ORG , born in DATE . The third applicant is his brother . The fourth and fifth applicants are PERSON wife and daughter .

At the material time the fourth and the fifth applicants together with PERSON lived at CARDINAL FAC in the town of PERSON , PERSON . The first and second applicants lived in a house nearby , QUANTITY away .

The applicants were not eyewitnesses to PERSON abduction and the following account of events is based on the witness statements collected by them after his disappearance and on other documents furnished by them to the ORG .

At TIME on DATE PERSON , who was heading from the grocery store to his home , met a neighbour , PERSON Kh . The men were talking next to PERSON house when a white VAZ-CARDINAL ( “ PERSON ) vehicle with blacked - out windows and a dark blue CARDINAL car pulled over . Although the vehicles ' registration plates were covered with mud , the GPE had part of its number , “ CARDINAL ” , visible . CARDINAL masked men in camouflage uniforms emerged from the cars . They were armed with AK assault rifles and spoke unaccented NORP . The men ran up to PERSON and ORG Kh . and hit the latter in the face so that he fell to the ground . They then forced PERSON into the white PERSON vehicle . According to the statement by PERSON , PERSON was forced to the ground and then put in the FAC vehicle . Kh . Kh . submitted in his statement that , before being forced into the FAC vehicle , PERSON had been hit with a rifle - butt in the stomach .

PERSON 's neighbour , Ya . Kh . , heard a noise and looked out of the window of her house . She saw across the street a group of men throw PERSON into the white PERSON vehicle . After that the vehicles with PERSON drove away in the direction of the PERSON department of the interior ( “ the ORG ” ) and the local road police station ( “ the GPE station ” ) located QUANTITY from PERSON house .

A number of other local residents witnessed the abduction of PERSON . In particular , prior to arriving at PERSON house , the white Niva vehicle had caused a traffic accident with CARDINAL minivans which both had CARDINAL passengers on board . The passengers in the minivans , as well as their drivers , including ORG , and the crowd gathered at the place of the accident witnessed the abduction of PERSON ORG by a group of armed masked men .

One of the local residents , PERSON , was driving past the applicants ' house when he saw a group of armed men throw a man into a white Niva vehicle . TIME , passing by the GPE station , he informed the on - duty officer PERSON . about the incident and told him that CARDINAL vehicles , a white GPE and a dark blue PERSON with the abducted man , were driving behind him on the same road . PERSON . stopped the CARDINAL cars . A man of NORP appearance , DATE , got out of the white Niva vehicle . He spoke unaccented NORP and produced a special permit of ORG of ORG ( “ ORG Штаб ORG ” ) , prohibiting any search of the permit owner and his vehicle . The man introduced himself as an officer of the ORG and ordered PERSON . to let the CARDINAL vehicles through . PERSON . recognised him as the man who had been introduced to him as an ORG officer during an investigation into an explosion in PERSON , and who had participated in the investigation together with other ORG officers . Having checked the permit , PERSON . let the CARDINAL vehicles pass . From the GPE station the CARDINAL vehicles took the GPE and drove in the direction of the town of PERSON , PERSON .

The applicants have had no news of PERSON since DATE .

The above description of the events of DATE is based , among other things , on the applicants ' application form dated CARDINAL DATE ; written statements by ORG and ORG of DATE ; written statements by Ya . Kh . and ORG Kh . made on DATE ; a written statement by the third applicant made on DATE ; written statements by the first and second applicants dated DATE , and a hand - drawn map of the LOC at FAC in PERSON with detailed indications of the objects and persons at the time of the abduction and the direction taken by the abductors .

In their statements the first to third applicants referred to the time of PERSON abduction as approximately TIME ; according to the statements by PERSON . Kh . and Ya . Kh . , it occurred “ at TIME ” According to all witness and applicants ' statements submitted to ORG , there had been CARDINAL abductors who had arrived in a white PERSON and a dark blue ORG vehicle ; PERSON had been put into the white FAC vehicle .

The Government submitted that on DATE at CARDINAL p.m. , a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had forced PERSON into a white FAC vehicle near house no . CARDINAL at FAC in PERSON and had taken him to an unknown destination .

NORP Immediately after the abduction of PERSON , at QUANTITY on DATE , Ya . Kh . alerted the first , second and third applicants about their relative 's abduction . At TIME the applicants complained about PERSON abduction to a number of local law enforcement agencies , including the ORG . The authorities denied having arrested the applicants ' relative .

On DATE or DATE the third applicant 's car was stopped by a grey VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle with blacked - out windows and without number plates . CARDINAL men in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicle , while the driver stayed inside . CARDINAL of them , aged TIME and of NORP appearance , approached the third applicant and identified himself as an ORG officer , but refused to provide his name . He carried a PERSON pistol – the usual equipment of members of the NORP “ power structures ” . He told the third applicant that he could provide him with information on the whereabouts of PERSON in exchange for CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) . The officer described in detail the clothing worn by PERSON on DATE of his abduction .

Having received the money , the officer told the applicant that his brother had been abducted by a group of officers of the ORG department of the ORG , the GPE department of the ORG and ORG of the ORG in LOC ( УФСБ по Республике Ингушетии , PERSON и ORG по PERSON ) . The officer told the applicant that after the abduction PERSON had been taken to the ORG department of the ORG in PERSON and had been detained in a basement . The following day , presumably on DATE , PERSON had allegedly been taken by CARDINAL grey ORG vehicles ( “ таблетка ” ) to the LOC settlement in GPE , where the main base of the NORP military forces was located . According to the officer , while in detention PERSON had been subjected to beatings and torture with a view to making him confess to an unspecified crime he had not committed .

On an unspecified date in DATE the third applicant met with an acquaintance who had come over with a young armed man in a camouflage uniform , who was carrying a pistol . The latter spoke PERSON and introduced himself as an officer of the ORG headquarters in PERSON . In exchange for ORG CARDINAL he promised to find out more information about PERSON . On DATE the applicant met with him again . According to the officer , on DATE a man answering to the description of PERSON had been brought to the ORG headquarters in PERSON and taken into the building through a side entrance .

NORP In DATE , when returning from his parents ' home , the third applicant was allegedly approached by a young man in a camouflage uniform and a black knitted hat , who called the third applicant by name . He spoke LANGUAGE without accent . The man identified himself as an ORG officer and showed the third applicant a dark - red or brown certificate with a laminated picture . The third applicant could not read the man 's family name on the certificate because it was dark and the latter was covering it with his fingers . Having showed the certificate the man told the third applicant that he was not going to identify himself because “ if ( the third applicant ) fell into the hands of the ORG he would tell them everything ” . While the man was talking , the third applicant noticed CARDINAL grey PERSON vehicles and a white ORG vehicle on the opposite side of the street . The man offered to give the third applicant the name of CARDINAL of PERSON abductors in exchange for MONEY . The third applicant asked him to give the name of the officer who had shown PERSON . a special permit at the GPE station , thinking that PERSON . would be able to identify that officer during an eventual confrontation . The man agreed and the third applicant gave him ORG CARDINAL and PERSON picture , with the third applicant 's mobile number written on its reverse side . The remainder of the amount was to be paid on receipt of the information .

On DATE the third applicant allegedly received a call on his mobile . A man who did not identify himself told him that the person who had abducted PERSON and shown the special permit at the GPE station was PERSON , an officer of the ORG department in GPE . DATE an unidentified person visited the third applicant at TIME to obtain the remaining CARDINAL and allegedly told the third applicant that PERSON was serving in the ORG with the rank of lieutenant - colonel .

In their search for PERSON the applicants also contacted , both in person and in writing , various official bodies , such as the NORP President , ORG , the Envoy of the President of GPE in GPE , the administration of GPE and departments of the interior and prosecutors ' offices at different levels , describing in detail the circumstances of their relative 's abduction and asking for help in establishing his whereabouts . The applicants retained copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the ORG .

Following the applicants ' complaint about PERSON abduction , at TIME on DATE CARDINAL law - enforcement officers arrived at the applicants ' house . They introduced themselves as the head of the local department of the fight against organised crime ( the ORG ) and the district police officer . The officers interviewed an unspecified number of witnesses to the abduction of PERSON .

According to the third applicant , on DATE he went to the PERSON town prosecutor 's office ( “ the town prosecutor 's office ” ) to submit a written complaint about his brother 's abduction . He was received by investigator PERSON , who refused to accept his complaint and first called , in the third applicant 's presence , the ORG department in ORG and asked them whether their officials had carried out special operations in PERSON . O. then allegedly asked his interlocutor on the phone whether he could accept the third applicant 's complaint about the abduction of his brother . O. then told the third applicant that , according his interlocutor , the ORG department in ORG had not carried out any special operations or arrests in PERSON and that he had been allowed to accept the third applicant 's complaint .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE ( “ the NORP prosecutor 's office ” ) forwarded the third applicant 's complaint about the abduction of PERSON to the town prosecutor 's office for examination .

On DATE the town prosecutor 's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of PERSON under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given number DATE ( in the submitted documents the number is also referred to as CARDINAL ) .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the town prosecutor 's office informed the third applicant that a criminal investigation into the abduction of PERSON had been opened . The decision stated , in particular , that at TIME on DATE unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms , who had arrived in a FAC vehicle and a CARDINAL vehicle , had forced PERSON into CARDINAL of the vehicles near CARDINAL FAC and had taken him to an unknown destination . By a letter of the same date addressed to the third applicant the latter , as well as “ other relatives ” of PERSON , were requested to come to the town prosecutor 's office for an interview and eventual recognition as victims in that criminal case .

On DATE the second applicant complained to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL that his son had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms in several vehicles . He pointed out that when the abductors had been stopped at the GPE station , CARDINAL of them had produced a special permit which had allowed the cars to pass without being checked . The second applicant also stated that he had managed to find out that PERSON had been abducted by officers of the ORG department of the ORG , the GPE department of the ORG and ORG of the ORG in the LOC ; that he had been taken to the headquarters of the FAC department of the ORG in PERSON and put into a basement ; that on DATE his son had been taken to the settlement of GPE in GPE , where he had been and was still detained . According to the second applicant that information had been provided by officers of the above - mentioned departments of the ORG who had asked that their names not be disclosed ; they had also told the second applicant that PERSON had been subjected to beatings and torture and pressurised to confess to an unspecified crime . The second applicant emphasised that both he and the first applicant were suffering because they knew nothing about their son 's fate and had no information about what was being done about it by the investigating authorities .

On DATE the third applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE the ORG department of the ORG informed the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL that they had not arrested PERSON and had no information concerning his whereabouts .

On DATE the investigators in criminal case no . DATE issued a statement concerning the progress of the investigation . The document provided , inter alia , a detailed description of the circumstances of PERSON abduction and stated that he had not committed any crimes and that his name had not been on the authorities ' wanted list . According to the document , the investigation had questioned a number of witnesses to the abduction , including officer PERSON . and PERSON The document , in so far as relevant , continues as follows :

In his explanation of DATE officer PERSON . of the ORG submitted that on DATE , while he was on duty at the Kursk - I GPE station , ... DATE , he was approached by an acquaintance PERSON who had told him that ... he was being followed by a green CARDINAL vehicle and a white Niva vehicle ; he saw a man being forced into one of those vehicles - those vehicles had been closely following PERSON

ORG . ordered the CARDINAL vehicles to stop . The FAC vehicle was in front and was followed by a CARDINAL vehicle ; neither of them had registration plates . The driver of the Niva vehicle had got out and had shown [ PERSON . ] a special permit exempting the vehicles and the persons inside from checking . PERSON . recognised the driver as an officer of the ORG department of the ORG , whom he had seen earlier in connection with various incidents , most recently at the scene of a crime at CARDINAL Chkalova Street , where , as a result of an explosion , a ORG officer , ORG , had had his hand torn off . PERSON . did not know the family name of the ORG officer but could identify him at any time . PERSON . described [ that officer 's ] distinctive marks .

At his interview on DATE PERSON . gave a similar statement .

Witness PERSON in his explanation and during his interview on DATE submitted that on DATE , at TIME , when he had been driving towards the centre of PERSON , ... CARDINAL armed persons had stepped into the road and stopped the traffic . At the same moment , their accomplices had forced a young man , who had previously been held in the CARDINAL vehicle , into the white GPE and taken him away ; PERSON had informed the GPE station located near the ORG about this . The on - duty officer had stopped vehicles without licence plates , checked their documents and let them through . In answer to PERSON question why he had let them pass , the officer answered that he knew one of them as an ORG officer . From [ PERSON . 's ] explanation PERSON understood that the ORG officers had not abducted but arrested PERSON . PERSON would not be able to identify those persons because they had been wearing masks ....

According to a certificate of the head of the ORG dated DATE , on DATE PERSON , born in DATE , had been taken to an unknown destination by officers of the power structures ... ”

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the second applicant that the examination of his complaint had established that officers of the FAC and GPE departments of the ORG had not participated in the abduction of PERSON . According to the letter , the military prosecutor 's office of ORG ( the ORG military prosecutor 's office ) had forwarded a request for assistance in the search for PERSON to ORG of the ORG .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office informed the second applicant that they had studied the case concerning the abduction of PERSON and had issued instructions for the investigation aimed at establishing the identity of the perpetrators of his abduction . According to the letter , the authorities were verifying the thesis of possible involvement of the ORG officers in the abduction and his detention in GPE .

On DATE the second applicant complained about PERSON ORG 's abduction to the head of the ORG of the Russian Federation and ORG . He described in detail the circumstances of his son 's abduction by armed men in camouflage uniforms in several vehicles and pointed out that when the abductors had been stopped at the GPE station CARDINAL of them had produced a special permit which had allowed the vehicles to pass without a check . The second applicant also stated that he had managed to find out that his son had been abducted by officers of the Ingushetia department of the ORG , the GPE department of the ORG and ORG of the ORG in the LOC ; that he had been taken to the headquarters of the FAC department of the ORG in PERSON and put in a basement ; that on DATE his son had been taken to the settlement of GPE in GPE , where he was still detained . According to the second applicant , that information had been provided to him by officers of the above - mentioned departments of the ORG , who had asked him not to disclose their names ; they had also told the second applicant that PERSON had been subjected to beatings and torture and pressurised to confess to an unspecified crime . Lastly , he stressed that both he and the first applicant had experienced enormous suffering because of the lack of news about their son and the investigating authorities ' failure to take any measures to find him or to identify the perpetrators .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office informed the second applicant that his complaint about the abduction of PERSON had been forwarded to the town prosecutor 's office for examination .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the town prosecutor 's office informed the second applicant that they had opened a criminal investigation into his son 's abduction ; that they were verifying the information submitted by the second applicant during the preliminary investigation , and that he would be given any relevant information in due course .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office wrote to the second applicant that the town prosecutor 's office had opened a criminal investigation into his son 's abduction and that operational and search measures were under way . The letter stated the investigation of the criminal case was under the control of the NORP prosecutor 's office .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the town prosecutor 's office suspended the investigation in criminal case no . DATE for failure to identify the perpetrators and establish PERSON whereabouts ; the operational and search measures aimed at identification of the culprits were to be continued .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the third applicant requested the town prosecutor 's office to provide him with information on the status and the progress in the investigation into his brother 's abduction .

On DATE the third applicant wrote to the town prosecutor 's office seeking detailed information on the investigation in case no . DATE and access to the case file .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the town prosecutor 's office refused his request , stating that the third applicant would be allowed to have detailed information concerning the investigation and access to the case file materials only when the investigation was complete . In a letter of DATE the town prosecutor 's office notified the third applicant accordingly and provided him with copies of CARDINAL procedural decisions issued by it : the decision to open the criminal investigation ; the decision to grant the third applicant victim status , and the decision to suspend the investigation .

On DATE the third applicant requested the town prosecutor 's office to reopen the investigation in case no . DATE and to carry out additional investigative measures . In particular , he asked the authorities to compile a photofit image of CARDINAL of the abductors based on the statements by officer PERSON . and to conduct an identification procedure .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the town prosecutor 's office granted the third applicant 's request concerning the photofit image . The decision also stated that the third applicant was to be notified of it . It is unclear whether the requested investigative measures have been carried out by the authorities .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office informed the third applicant that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been resumed on an unspecified date .

On DATE the third applicant wrote to the town prosecutor 's office , submitting that on DATE an unidentified man had told him on the phone that CARDINAL of PERSON abductors was Mr PERSON , an officer of the GPE department of the ORG . In connection with that information the third applicant requested the authorities to carry out the following investigative measures in criminal case no . DATE : establishing whether PERSON was indeed an ORG officer in the GPE region ; establishing whether he had been stationed in ORG on DATE ; having his photograph identified by officer PERSON . and carrying out of a confrontation between officer PERSON . and officer PERSON , the third applicant requested to be informed about the results .

By a decision of DATE the town prosecutor 's office granted the third applicant 's request . On DATE third applicant was informed about it . It is unclear whether the investigating authorities took any of the requested measures .

On DATE the town prosecutor 's office informed the third applicant that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been resumed on an unspecified date .

DATE . On DATE the third applicant wrote to the town prosecutor 's office seeking access to the case file materials in criminal case no . DATE and permission to make copies of them .

On DATE the town prosecutor 's office informed the third applicant that his request for access to the case file had been refused and that the applicant would be allowed to have access to it only when the investigation was complete .

It appears that the investigation into the abduction of PERSON is still pending .

On DATE the town prosecutor 's office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of PERSON under LAW of LAW . The case file was assigned the number DATE .

On DATE the third applicant was granted victim status in connection with the proceedings in case no . DATE .

On being questioned as a victim on DATE , the third applicant submitted that on DATE at TIME unidentified persons wearing masks had abducted and taken away his brother , PERSON . According to eyewitnesses to the abduction , CARDINAL unidentified persons had arrived in CARDINAL blue CARDINAL vehicles without number plates and a white Niva vehicle whose number plates were covered with mud but the number CARDINAL was visible on it .

During an additional interview as a victim the third applicant explained that on DATE , at TIME a person unknown to him had called him on his mobile phone and had stated that CARDINAL of the abductors of the third applicant 's brother had been PERSON , officer of the NORP regional or town department of the ORG .

According to the Government , Ya . Kh . , interviewed on an unspecified date , stated that at TIME on DATE she had been in her house at CARDINAL NORP Street , PERSON . Looking out of the window she had seen several unidentified armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms force PERSON into a FAC vehicle and leave thereafter in the direction of GPE . Ya . PERSON . would not be able to identify those persons .

M.B. , questioned as a witness on an unspecified date , submitted that at TIME on DATE he had been driving along FAC . As he was passing the GPE café , he had seen CARDINAL unidentified people step into the road and stop the traffic . Other unidentified people put a young man into a white Niva vehicle and went off with him towards the GPE settlement , the CARDINAL vehicle following the GPE . When the CARDINAL vehicles turned into FAC , PERSON told an on - duty police officer at the Kursk - I GPE station what he had seen . The police officer had checked the documents of the drivers and passengers in the vehicles and let them through . In reply to PERSON 's question as to why they had not been stopped , the police officer answered that an ORG officer of the ORG department of the ORG had been in one of the vehicles .

According to the ORG , officer PERSON . , questioned as a witness on an unspecified date , stated that on DATE he had been on duty at the GPE station in PERSON . PERSON applied to him , saying that armed persons driving CARDINAL vehicles without number plates had arrested PERSON and had been taking him in the direction of the GPE station . When PERSON . stopped those vehicles the driver of the PERSON showed a special permit allowing unhindered passage for his vehicle . PERSON . did not pay attention to the name on the permit , as the driver was an officer of the ORG department whom PERSON . had previously met , most recently on DATE at the scene of a crime at CARDINAL Chkalova Street in PERSON .

During an additional interview as a witness PERSON . confirmed his earlier statement in full but submitted that , owing to the time which had elapsed since the abduction of PERSON , he would not be able to identify the ORG officer who had shown him the special permit .

According to the Government , officers PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . , T. , NORP and PERSON . of the GPE station , interviewed as witnesses , made statements similar to those given by officer PERSON .

According to the Government , PERSON , interviewed as a witness on an unspecified date , stated that , as a senior officer of the NORP regional department of the ORG , he had been stationed in ORG from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he had been at his permanent post in GPE .

The Government further submitted that unspecified authorities had requested that the ORG department of the ORG provide information in connection with officer PERSON . 's statements . From their reply it followed that officers of that authority had not been at the crime scene at CARDINAL Chkalova Street , PERSON .

With a view to establishing PERSON whereabouts and obtaining information on whether he had been arrested or prosecuted , the investigation sent out requests [ поручение ] to numerous authorities , including unspecified prosecutors of GPE , heads of the ORG departments in LOC and the UGA military prosecutor 's office . According to the replies of those ORG bodies , he was not under arrest or criminal prosecution and his whereabouts were unknown .

From the replies of the ORG , and the remand centres in the ORG , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , LAW and NORP districts , as well as several remand centres in the GPE - GPE , it followed that PERSON was not detained in those detention facilities .

The investigation in the case concerning PERSON abduction had been repeatedly suspended for failure to identify those responsible and subsequently resumed with a view to verifying new information . It found no evidence that PERSON had been abducted by ORG officials or that he was not alive . The investigation in case no . DATE was pending .

NORP Despite specific requests by ORG , the ORG refused to furnish any copies from the investigation file in case no . DATE . They claimed that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW and would “ breach the rights of the parties to the criminal proceedings ” . Neither did the Government indicate the exact dates or provide any further details of the witness ' interviews and other investigative measures referred to in their submissions to the ORG .

On DATE the third applicant complained to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was ineffective . He submitted , among other things , that it had taken the district prosecutor 's office an unjustifiably long time to launch the investigation ; that the main witness , officer PERSON . , had only been questioned DATE after the opening of the investigation and that the district prosecutor 's office had failed to take the most basic investigative steps in due time . In particular , they had failed to interview some witnesses and to compile a photofit image of the abductor who had shown the special passage permit at the GPE station . Despite the information concerning PERSON , the investigation had failed to check it with the relevant ORG departments . On a more general level , the third applicant complained that he had had to beg for each and every investigative measure and that the investigating authorities had carried them out only after numerous requests from him , which was demonstrated by his voluminous correspondence with the town prosecutor 's office . Lastly , the third applicant stressed that the numerous omissions in the investigation had made it impossible to solve his brother 's abduction and to identify and punish the persons responsible for it , and that the culprits had been able to conceal the traces of their crime forever . He also averred that those omissions had been in breach of LAW .

DATE . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the third applicant 's complaint as unfounded . The court found that , having received the third applicant 's complaint about the abduction of PERSON on DATE , the town prosecutor 's office , had sent a query to the ORG department of the ORG on DATE to find out whether they had arrested the applicant 's brother . The reply to that query had been received only on DATE and on DATE the town prosecutor 's office had instituted criminal proceedings into the abduction . The town prosecutor 's office could not have instituted the proceedings earlier ; it had had first to satisfy itself that PERSON had not been lawfully arrested .

In respect of the remainder of the third applicant 's complaints , ORG held as follows :

“ ... As to the submission about the belated interviewing of officer PERSON . , who had seen one of the abductors , the following should be noted .

It follows from the materials available to the court that ... [ on DATE ] the head of the ORG had been requested to carry out operational and search measures aimed at liberating PERSON and identifying his abductors . Analogous requests had been sent to [ various departments of ORG ] of GPE . On DATE the ORG prosecutor and the prosecutors of the ORG and GPE had been requested to verify whether any law - enforcement authorities responsible to them had arrested PERSON . Those requests had been repeatedly sent to those authorities in DATE .... Those requests could not have given an immediate result . Before interviewing witnesses it is necessary to identify them . As early as DATE the deputy prosecutor of ORG had issued a written direction to for witness PERSON . to be interviewed . Those directions have been complied with in full and within the time - limits set ...

The complainant also submits that , despite the information implicating PERSON in the crime , the investigation had failed to verify it . However , from the prosecutor 's submissions it transpires that the check conducted by the prosecutor 's office had established that PERSON had not been involved in the abduction of PERSON .

The suspension of the investigation in view of the failure to identify the persons having committed the abduction of PERSON is in accordance with the requirements of LAW of the ORG . ”

The third applicant appealed against the decision , submitting that ORG reasoning concerning the promptness of the institution of the investigation was absurd . In particular , applying that reasoning , the investigating authorities would be free not to institute a criminal investigation for DATE if the authority which they had requested to provide the information failed to reply in due time . He further challenged the court 's finding that the investigation had carried out all necessary steps and had taken them in due time . In particular , he stressed that the investigation had not confronted officer PERSON . and officer PERSON , although the former expressly stated that he had seen PERSON at the scene of an explosion where PERSON was working in a group of ORG officers and had identified himself as an ORG officer . Lastly , the third applicant pointed out that the photofit image of the abductor seen by officer PERSON . had been compiled DATE after the opening of the investigation and after the applicant 's repeated requests .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the third applicant 's appeal , having found that the investigating authorities had taken all necessary measures to find the missing man and those involved in the abduction .

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


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , ORG .

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

The applicant , who is of NORP origin , visited GPE for the first time as a tourist DATE and DATE in order to see his sister , living in GPE . He then entered into a relationship with PERSON , a NORP citizen and a friend of his sister 's . On DATE he arrived in GPE for the second time . He stayed with PERSON and the couple married on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for a residence permit on the basis of the link to his wife . He stated that he had CARDINAL children in GPE , a boy named PERSON , born on DATE , and a girl named PERSON , born on DATE . Apparently , the children have different mothers . At an interview with the immigration authorities , the applicant stated that he was born and raised in the city of GPE , GPE , and that he had CARDINAL brothers and QUANTITY sisters all of whom , except the sister in GPE , lived in GPE . His CARDINAL children were living with their paternal grandmother in PERSON . He intended to bring them to GPE in the future .

On DATE the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit , which was later renewed several times . At interviews held in connection with these renewals , the applicant stated that he kept in contact with his children in GPE through telephone calls and letters and that he sent them money . As to where the children were living , the information given by the applicant varied . In DATE he asserted that PERSON lived with his maternal grandmother and PERSON with her mother and paternal grandmother . In DATE he stated that they both lived with their paternal grandmother . In DATE he claimed that PERSON lived with his maternal grandmother and PERSON with her mother .

On DATE a son , PERSON , was born to the applicant and PERSON On DATE the applicant was granted a permanent residence permit in GPE on account of his family ties . He acquired NORP citizenship on DATE .

On DATE applications for residence permits in GPE were submitted to ORG in GPE concerning the applicant 's mother , PERSON and PERSON . Asked about the applications , the applicant stated , in DATE , that he was PERSON 's legal guardian , although the guardianship had not been established by a court . The girl had lived with her mother until DATE , when she had moved in with her paternal grandmother as her mother had married and could not take care of PERSON for financial reasons . The applicant had not seen PERSON since leaving GPE but had spoken to her on the telephone . He had , however , lived with her in DATE , DATE and DATE . At an interview with ORG ( ORG invandrarverk ) in DATE , the applicant asserted that he had never lived with PERSON 's mother , nor had he lived permanently with PERSON and her CARDINAL - brother PERSON . However , the children had visited him and his mother for shorter periods of time while he was still in GPE . The applicant also stated that PERSON had lived with her mother until DATE when her mother had married and handed over PERSON to her paternal grandmother .

On DATE ORG rejected the applications . In regard to PERSON , the ORG referred to the applicant 's statement that she had lived with her mother until DATE when the mother had married and handed over her to the applicant 's mother . Concluding that the daughter had never been living with the applicant , ORG found that she could not be granted residence permits pursuant to chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Utlänningslagen , CARDINAL ) .

The applicant appealed against the decision . He appended an affidavit from ORG 's mother dated DATE in which she stated that PERSON had been living with her paternal grandmother since DATE , as she was unemployed and therefore unable to take care of her daughter herself .

On DATE ORG ( Utlänningsnämnden ) upheld ORG decision .

On DATE new applications for residence permits were submitted to ORG in GPE on behalf of PERSON and PERSON . From the documents appended it transpired that the applicant 's mother had died on DATE and that the applicant was in GPE for the funeral and to sort out certain issues that had emerged as a result of her death .

On DATE the second applications were rejected by ORG ( ORG ; previously ORG ) . ORG concluded that the children had never been living with the applicant and could not therefore be granted residence permits in GPE .

In an appeal of CARDINAL DATE , it was stated that PERSON was DATE when the applicant left GPE , which explained why the applicant had never lived with her . PERSON had lived alternately with his mother and father .

The appeal was rejected by ORG on DATE .

Third applications for residence permits for the children were lodged with ORG on DATE . There it was claimed that the previous decisions of the immigration authorities had been based on a misunderstanding . The applicant had had , it was stated , very close contact with the children while he was living in GPE . PERSON had lived with his mother at her parents ' home but the applicant had still maintained close contact with him . PERSON 's mother and the applicant had lived together for DATE after PERSON had been born until he went to GPE for the first time . When he had returned to GPE he had stayed with his mother and PERSON . PERSON had been living in CARDINAL of the neighbouring houses with her mother .

On DATE ORG rejected the applications , finding that the new claim concerning PERSON was not credible as the applicant previously had asserted that he had never cohabited with PERSON 's mother .

In an appeal it was submitted that the applicant had visited GPE DATE and DATE to commemorate the first anniversary of his mother 's death and that his son PERSON had been with him on the visit . It was further stated that PERSON and PERSON were at that time staying with their aunt , PERSON , one of the applicant 's sisters , in GPE and that the applicant was paying for their school fees and living expenses . An additional submission of DATE contained information that FAC was going to move with her family to GPE for studies in DATE , leaving the applicant 's children in GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . Concerning PERSON , the ORG upheld the assessment of ORG . With regard to PERSON it was noted that he had reached the age of DATE and that he had never been a member of the same household as his father .

A fourth application for a residence permit for PERSON was lodged on DATE with ORG in GPE . Appended to the application was , inter alia , a copy of PERSON 's passports which included the names of CARDINAL of her aunts , including PERSON , to be contacted in the event of accident or death . It was further stated in the application that PERSON was currently living with a good friend of ORG , who is apparently the director of ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the fourth application , stating that , apart from the fact that PERSON was no longer living with her aunt , no new circumstances had emerged .

In an appeal to ORG , PERSON 's counsel stated the following . During DATE after her birth , the daughter had been taken care of by her mother . Thereafter , she had lived with her father – the applicant – and her paternal grandparents , until her father left for GPE in DATE . It was therefore not correct that she had never lived with her father . That conclusion was based on incomplete information previously given by the applicant . It was further claimed that the woman who was at the time taking care of PERSON had accepted this responsibility on the condition that it would be a temporary measure and had contacted the applicant to inform him that she was going to travel abroad . PERSON therefore no longer had any relative or other person who could take care of her .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It noted that the information on whether the applicant and PERSON had ever lived together had been changed on several occasions . In DATE , during the investigation relating to the first application , the applicant had stated that he had never lived together with his daughter . In submissions of DATE , PERSON 's counsel had stated that the she was DATE when the applicant left GPE and that they had thus not lived together . In further submissions of DATE , the counsel had stated that the applicant had lived with PERSON 's mother for DATE after PERSON 's birth and had then left the country . Having regard to the contradictory statements , ORG concluded that it had not been shown that PERSON had ever lived with the applicant .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON divorced .

The basic provisions concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are found in LAW . LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that a residence permit may be given to an alien who is below the age of DATE and unmarried and who is or has been living at home with a parent who is resident in GPE or who has been granted a permit to reside in GPE .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant , Mr Galib Myumyum Emin , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and as far as the ORG is aware now lives in GPE .

The applicant arrived in the GPE in DATE . He never obtained legal residence . On DATE the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) decided to impose an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on the applicant pursuant to the provisions of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) as he had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for DATE .

The applicant was released from prison on DATE . That same day the Deputy Minister of ORG ( ORG ; the successor to the Minister for ORG ) ordered the applicant to be taken into GPE detention ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) with a view to his expulsion from the GPE .

Also on DATE , the applicant appealed the decision to take him into NORP detention to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , sitting in ‘ s - Hertogenbosch .

The applicant was released from GPE detention on DATE but informed ORG that he wanted to pursue his appeal in order to obtain compensation . In support of his appeal , the applicant argued inter alia that the exclusion order imposed on him had in the meantime become based on incorrect grounds as GPE had since joined ORG ( “ ORG ” ) and the criteria for imposing an exclusion order on ORG citizens were more stringent .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s appeal . It held that the Deputy Minister had neglected to initiate activities to expel the applicant from the GPE while he was still in prison following his criminal conviction . Furthermore , ORG considered that the Deputy Minister had not assessed , at the time the decision was taken to place the applicant in GPE detention , whether the criteria in force for imposing an exclusion order applied to the applicant . For these reasons ORG held that the applicant ’s GPE detention had been unlawful from the outset . ORG however declined to award compensation to the applicant as he had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and an exclusion order had also been imposed on him .

On DATE the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG of ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak PERSON ) against the decision of ORG not to award him compensation even though his GPE detention had been declared unlawful from the start .

On DATE the ORG declared the appeal inadmissible since , pursuant to article CARDINAL sub d of LAW , no further appeal lay against a refusal to award compensation .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Aliens Act ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) provides :

“ CARDINAL . If ORG orders the lifting of a measure deprivative of liberty , or if the deprivation of liberty is lifted even before the request for the lifting of that measure is considered , it may grant the alien compensation at ORG expense . Damage shall include non - pecuniary damage . ... ”

In so far as the above provision proves insufficient or inappropriate to the purpose , it is also possible for former detainees to seek compensation for a wrongful act , or tort , on the part of public authority ( onrechtmatige overheidsdaad ) by taking civil proceedings against the ORG and claiming compensation for damages based on the argument that the detention in question constituted a wrongful act within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code . Article CARDINAL:CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides :

“ CARDINAL . A person who commits a wrongful act ( onrechtmatige daad ) against another which is attributable to him , must repair the damage suffered by the other in consequence .

Except where there is a ground of justification , the following acts are deemed to be wrongful : the violation of a right , and an act or omission violating a duty imposed by law or a rule of unwritten law pertaining to proper social conduct .

A wrongdoer is responsible for the commission of a wrongful act if it is due to his fault or to a cause for which he is accountable by law or pursuant to generally accepted principles ( de in het verkeer geldende opvatting ) . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE . The first and second applicants are a married couple , and the third applicant is the second applicant 's mother . They live together in the house which was the object of the litigation outlined below .

On DATE CARDINAL individuals brought an action against the applicants before the GPE XX / XXI / XXIII ORG , requesting it to establish the invalidity of a contract and to order the applicants to vacate the house in which they lived .

Subsequently , several hearings took place and the opinion of an expert was obtained . DATE and DATE the case was suspended pending a related procedure before the land registry .

After several further hearings , on DATE ORG dismissed the action . On appeal , ORG upheld the essence of the first - instance decision on DATE .


The applicant is a NORP citizen born in DATE and currently residing on LOC .

The facts of the case , as they have been submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows :

A.

The applicant is a single parent , with a child or children residing with him , and DATE he was in receipt of Income Support . It is not clear from the materials submitted by him how many children the applicant has living with him nor whether he is still in receipt of Income Support .

In DATE , the applicant received a letter from ORG asking him to indicate on a specific form whether he authorised the Secretary of ORG to contact the absent parent to arrange and collect child maintenance ( Declaration A ) or else to declare any reasons why there would be a risk of harm or undue distress if the Secretary of ORG did so ( Declaration B ) . It appears that the applicant returned PERSON then failed to complete the maintenance application form which was sent to him on DATE . A meeting followed with ORG and the applicant explained that he was unable to give the information about the mother of the children because he did not have her consent . He said to do so would be in breach of LAW , namely an interference in private life .

On DATE , the applicant was informed that he still had to complete the application form . On DATE , the applicant repeated that he could not do so as he would be in breach of LAW .

On DATE , the applicant was notified that , since he had insufficient grounds for not complying with the requests for information , ORG would consider reducing his benefits . A reduced benefit direction was subsequently imposed .

In DATE , the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review . Leave was refused on or DATE by Mr Justice PERSON because :

" The Secretary of ORG has acted under clear statutory powers given to him under LAW DATE . I can see no arguable grounds for judicial review of his decision in the material < the applicant has > provided . "

B. Relevant domestic law and procedure

LAW CARDINAL ( " the LAW " ) provides for the assessment , collection and enforcement of periodical maintenance payable by parents in respect of children not in their care . The LAW was designed to improve the position of children whose parents live apart . Research commissioned for the Government White Paper ( " Children come First " , DATE Cmnd CARDINAL ) had indicated that PERCENT of lone mothers and PERCENT of lone Fathers received regular child maintenance and that the average payment was very low . It was considered that the burden of supporting lone parents fell largely on the ORG .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

" ( CARDINAL ) Where income support ... is claimed by or ... paid to .. the parent of a qualifying child ( s)he shall if-

( a ) ( s)he is a person with care of the child ; and

( b ) ( s)he is required to do so by the Secretary of ORG ,

authorise the Secretary of ORG to take action under LAW to recover child support maintenance from the absent parent .

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall not require a person ( " the parent " ) to give him the authorisation mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) if he considers that there are reasonable grounds for believing that -

( a ) if the parent were to be required to give that authorisation ; or

( b ) if ( s)he were to give it ,

there would be a risk of her , or of any child living with her , suffering harm or undue distress as a result ..... "


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE . He is a retired military officer .

At the material time the applicant performed his military service at ORG of ORG . He sued the authorities for repayment of arrears in respect of the food allowance .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s action in part . The court established that the applicant was receiving the food allowance from military unit DATE of the Privolzhskiy Military Circuit and ordered ORG of the Privolzhskiy Military Circuit to pay him monetary compensation instead of uncollected food allowance for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the amount of compensation to be calculated on the basis of the real value of the food allowance at DATE of payment . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG amended the operative part of the judgment and ordered the respondent authority to pay to the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) in arrears relating to the food allowance . The judgment entered into force DATE .

On DATE the writ of execution was issued in respect of the judgment and on DATE the enforcement proceedings were opened by the bailiffs .

As from CARDINAL DATE the employees of ORG of ORG started receiving the food allowance from ORG ( “ the Institute ” ) . The applicant forwarded the judgments of DATE and DATE to the ORG , for repayment of the allowances due to him before his dismissal from the military service .

On DATE the ORG proposed to pay the applicant RUB DATE of the uncollected food allowance in respect of the period specified in the judgment of DATE . The applicant refused to accept the payment , since he was entitled to a bigger sum pursuant to the judgment .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from military service .

At some point he asked ORG to replace the defendant in his case by ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his motion could not be examined , since the enforcement proceedings were pending in respect of the judgment and the writ of execution was with the bailiffs’ office , and invited the applicant to address his inquiries directly to the bailiffs .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG paid to the applicant RUB CARDINAL in respect of the food allowance for the period from DATE . According to the applicant , the ORG refused to make any payments in respect of the period DATE , since the compensation for the unpaid allowance in respect of this period should have been paid to him by ORG of the Privolzhskiy Military Circuit , as ordered by the judgments of DATE and DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the bailiff fined the Head of the respondent service for the failure to comply with the judgment . The decisions to impose the fines were annulled by ORG , on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the bailiffs concluded that the execution was impossible , due to the respondent authority ’s lack of funds , discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the unexecuted writ to the domestic court .

On DATE ORG found that the shortage of funds could not be regarded as justification for delayed enforcement of the judgment . The court further ordered the replacement of the respondent by ORG of the Privolzhsko - Uralskiy Military Circuit , on account or re - organisation of the military circuits . The decision entered into force DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the replacement of the defendant in the applicant ’s case by ORG of FAC . The decision was not appealed against and entered into force on DATE .

On DATE ORG asked the court to reopen the case due to the newly established circumstances , to replace the defendant by the ORG and to stay the execution of the judgment .

NORP By letter of DATE a judge of ORG informed the defendant , inter alia , that its motion could not be granted . The court found it established that during the period at stake the applicant was receiving the food allowance from military unit DATE of the Privolzhskiy Military Circuit , and there was no ground to replace ORG of the respective circuit by ORG . The court urged the defendant to pay the judgment debt without further delay .

On DATE the amount awarded by the judgment of DATE , as modified on DATE , was paid to the applicant in full .

ORG The applicant challenged at the court his dismissal of DATE from the military service . He argued that he could not have been dismissed from the military service until all the allowances were paid to him in full .

On DATE ORG rejected his claim as having no grounds under the domestic law . The court acknowledged that the allowances he was entitled to had not been paid to him in their entirety by the date of dismissal . However , in the court ’s view , that this fact did not affect lawfulness of the dismissal , since the applicant himself had refused to receive a part of the allowance proposed to him .

On DATE the ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , a bailiff must enforce a judgment within DATE .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a civil action for compensation against ORG .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant 's action .

The applicant appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court .

At the hearing held on DATE the ORG gave judgment . It again dismissed the applicant 's action .

The applicant appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG gave a judgment . It dismissed the appeal .

It appears that the parties did not appeal against it and that the judgment became final .

On DATE , the date on which the application was lodged with the Commission , the proceedings were pending before ORG .

On DATE the Law of CARDINAL DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) entered into force . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . NORP Parties

Section CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . A complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings shall be lodged while the proceedings are pending . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides for measures that may be applied by the court dealing with the complaint . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall dismiss a complaint which is unjustified .

NORP If the court considers that the complaint is justified , it shall find that there was an unreasonable delay in the impugned proceedings .

At the request of the complainant , the court may instruct the court examining the merits of the case to take certain measures within a fixed time - limit . Such instructions shall not concern the factual and legal assessment of the case .

NORP If the complaint is justified the court may , at the request of the complainant , grant ... just satisfaction in an amount not exceeding PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by ORG . If such just satisfaction is granted it shall be paid out of the budget of the court which conducted the delayed proceedings . ”

Section CARDINAL lays down transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the ORG . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the date of entry into force of this law persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by LAW ... , may lodge a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of this law if their complaint to ORG had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) adopted a resolution ( no . III SPP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it ruled that while LAW produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force ( DATE ) , its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

András Sajó;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE PERSON and QUANTITY others brought an action against the applicant and CARDINAL further respondents before the Budapest IV / XV District Court , seeking title to , and termination of , co - ownership . Several respondents lived abroad , causing certain difficulties in summoning them .

ORG held CARDINAL hearings DATE and DATE .

On DATE the proceedings were stayed on account of the death of respondent ORG The applicant , on whom this was legally incumbent , invited the successors to join the proceedings on DATE .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL further hearings were held . A partial judgment was delivered on DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and , by its order of CARDINAL DATE , quashed the partial judgment and remitted the case to the first instance .

In the resumed proceedings , CARDINAL hearings were held and a partial judgment was delivered on DATE .

The proceedings continued on appeal before ORG , acting as a second - instance court . This court adopted a final partial decision on DATE .

As to the remainder , it appears from the documents in the case file that the proceedings are still pending .


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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

At DATE the police division responsible for fighting organised crime and drug trafficking ( “ the police ” ) received information that the applicant and his friends GPE and GPE were trafficking in drugs . The CARDINAL friends were ecstasy users . At the time of the events , the applicant and GPE were students .

On DATE the police sought authorisation from the prosecutor 's office to use undercover agents and a collaborator to follow the lead regarding the suspects ' alleged criminal activities . On DATE the organised crime and drug - trafficking section of the prosecutor 's office at ORG ( “ the prosecutor 's office ” ) authorised CARDINAL agents , referred to in the proceedings as “ PERSON and “ PERSON ” ( the latter being introduced to the applicant and his friends as “ PERSON ) , and a collaborator , “ PERSON , to participate in the operation .

On DATE PERSON met the applicant , GPE and PERSON in a restaurant ( “ restaurant E ” ) and agreed to meet with them again DATE .

At TIME the applicant and PERSON were sitting with PERSON on the terrace of restaurant M and GPE was sitting at the adjacent table with some friends , when plain clothes police officers rose from the neighbouring tables and arrested the CARDINAL suspects . A yellow plastic bag was taken from under the applicant 's table and its contents checked ; the police noted that it contained bread , under which were several packets fastened with brown tape which together contained CARDINAL white tablets which later proved to be ecstasy .

The CARDINAL suspects were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking . The police took photographs and videotaped the events . Images from the operation were shown on the evening news .

On her arrest GPE confessed to the prosecutor that she and PERSON had taken part in drug trafficking . However , she withdrew her confessions before the firstinstance court , claiming that she had been coerced into making them by the police with the promise that if she wrote down what she was told to write , she would be released after TIME .

The applicant and his friends claimed that they had been contacted by ORG , whose real name was PERSON , and who was a friend of GPE They gave the authorities his full name and address for further investigation . PERSON had told them that ORG had various objects ( clothes and watches ) for sale at reasonable prices . They finally agreed to meet PERSON and at TIME on CARDINAL DATE they , together with PERSON , went to restaurant PERSON They sat down with PERSON , who did not have the merchandise with him . Later that day the CARDINAL friends were at bar N. when PERSON told them that PERSON was at restaurant M and could meet them again . The applicant and PERSON left in PERSON 's car . After a while , they called GPE and GPE , who had stayed behind , and told them that PERSON had forgotten a yellow plastic bag under their table at the bar and asked them if they could bring it to restaurant M as it contained food for PERSON 's wife , who was ill .

At TIME the applicant and PERSON arrived at restaurant M and sat at PERSON 's table . TIME later PERSON , who was carrying PERSON 's plastic bag , and GPE , joined them . PERSON sat at PERSON 's table while GPE sat at the next table with some acquaintances .

When PERSON went to the toilet , plainclothes police officers intervened , expecting to find exactly CARDINAL tablets of ecstasy in the bag under the table .

In their statements , the applicant and his friends insisted that the drugs had in fact been given to the undercover agents by the police for the purpose of the covert operation . In support of their statements they pointed out that despite their constant surveillance over DATE the police could not explain where the friends had obtained the drugs .

The applicant and his friends were arrested and taken into custody on TIME of DATE , on suspicion of trafficking in drugs . Their detention was maintained by the courts throughout the proceedings .

NORP The prosecutor 's office heard evidence from the applicant , GPE and GPE , and from CARDINAL eyewitnesses who had been present on the terrace at restaurant M , and examined the written records of statements by PERSON and PERSON . At the prosecutor 's request , both the applicant 's and GPE 's flats were searched by the police . No drugs or other illegal substances were found .

The prosecutor concluded that on DATE PERSON had informed PERSON that the QUANTITY persons were preparing a transaction involving ORG tablets ( methylenedioxymethamphetamine ) . PERSON had then contacted PERSON , who had met with the suspects to secure the transaction . According to PERSON 's statements , the suspects had offered to sell him CARDINAL tablets of MDMA for MONEY each .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office committed the applicant , GPE and GPE for trial on charges of drug - trafficking , in violation of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the fight against drug trafficking and illegal drug use ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) .

It also decided to sever the criminal investigations from those concerning another participant in the trafficking , PERSON , who had not yet been identified by the police . On CARDINAL DATE , the prosecutor 's office at ORG identified PERSON as being the same person as PERSON and closed the investigation against him .

Several hearings were held before ORG .

The CARDINAL accused denied their involvement in drug trafficking and claimed that they had been entrapped by the police . They repeatedly stated that PERSON had also been present at restaurant PERSON

The defence lawyers insisted on the importance for the court of hearing evidence from PERSON in the presence of the defendants . They also requested the police to produce the bag and the packets in which the tablets had been found and to collect fingerprints from them . They considered that the court should see the video tapes of the events . Lastly , they asked for a confrontation between the applicants , which would allow them to prove that the police had put pressure on them and made them promises in order to obtain the initial declarations .

The court did not hear that evidence .

ORG gave judgment on DATE . It found the CARDINAL accused guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced them DATE imprisonment . It deducted from the sentence the time spent in pretrial detention . The court also confiscated the CARDINAL tablets of MDMA that were left after laboratory tests had been carried out .

ORG dismissed the defence arguments on the ground that under PERSON no . CARDINAL statements made by undercover agents and their collaborators can constitute evidence . The court was satisfied that those statements had not been obtained illegally and considered that the defence argument to the contrary could not taint the evidence . It also considered that the intention of the accused to sell drugs was evidenced by their entering into negotiations with PERSON , which in turn led to their authorising PERSON to make the transaction with the defendants and obtain the drugs from them .

In reaching its conclusion , ORG relied on the statements made by the suspects and the undercover agents PERSON and PERSON to the police , as well as the declarations made by the applicant before the court . It gave precedence to the statement given by GPE during the investigations as it considered that her withdrawal of her initial statement to the police was unjustified , as she had not proved that she had been coerced into making it .

All the parties appealed against the judgment of DATE . The defence counsel reiterated that the evidence gathered against the defendants was illegal , that the drugs had belonged to the police and that PERSON should be heard by the court .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG findings on the facts of the case and its examination of the participants ' guilt . It considered , however , that ORG had erred in determining the sentence , in that it had not taken into account the seriousness of the crimes committed and the fact that , as students , the participants had a higher level of education which should have allowed them to comprehend the gravity of their deeds . It therefore increased the sentence to DATE imprisonment for each defendant .

In a final decision of DATE ORG and ORG dismissed the defendants ' appeals in cassation and upheld ORG decision .

The relevant provisions of LAW and of Law no . CARDINAL are set out in GPE and GPE v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and ORG , § § DATE , DATE .

ORG texts on the use of special investigative techniques are detailed in PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ....