Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Continuing situation;Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Alvina Gyulumyan;David Thór Björgvinsson;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre

The complaints raised in this application arise out of the NORP military operations in northern GPE in DATE and DATE and the continuing division of the territory of GPE . At the time of the ORG ’s consideration of the merits of the PERSON v. GPE case in DATE , there was a NORP military presence of CARDINAL personnel throughout the whole of the occupied area of northern GPE which was constantly patrolled and had checkpoints on all main lines of communication ( PERSON v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINALVI ) .

In DATE there was the proclamation of the “ GPE ” ( the “ LOC ” ) and the subsequent enactment of the “ LAW ” on DATE , which was condemned by the international community . On DATE ORG adopted Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) declaring the proclamation of the establishment of the “ GPE ” legally invalid and calling upon all GPE not to recognise any ORG other than GPE . In DATE ORG decided that it continued to regard the government of GPE as the sole legitimate government of GPE and called for respect of the sovereignty , independence , territorial integrity and unity of GPE .

According to the respondent Government , the “ TRNC ” is a democratic and constitutional ORG which is politically independent of all other sovereign GPE including GPE , and the administration in northern GPE has been set up by the NORP - NORP people in the exercise of its right to self - determination and not by GPE . Notwithstanding this view , it is only the NORP government which is recognised internationally as the government of GPE in the context of diplomatic and treaty relations and the working of international organisations .

ORG peacekeeping forces ( “ UNFICYP ” ) maintain a buffer - zone . A number of political initiatives have been taken at the level of ORG aimed at settling the GPE problem on the basis of institutional arrangements acceptable to both sides .

Furthermore , and of relevance to the instant application , in DATE ORG on Missing Persons ( “ CMP ” ) was set up to “ look into cases of persons reported missing in the inter - communal fighting as well as in the events of DATE and afterwards ” and “ to draw up comprehensive lists of missing persons of both communities , specifying as appropriate whether they are still alive or dead , and in the latter case approximate times of death ” . The ORG has not yet completed its investigations ( see further below paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The events of DATE and DATE and their aftermath gave rise to CARDINAL previous applications by the applicant Government against the respondent ORG under former LAW .

and CARDINAL . NORP The first ( no . CARDINAL ) and second ( no . CARDINAL ) applications were joined by the ORG and led to the adoption on DATE of a report under former LAW ( “ the DATE report ” ) in which the ORG expressed the opinion that the respondent ORG had violated ORG , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL .

The third application ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) lodged by the applicant Government was the subject of a further report under former DATE adopted by ORG on DATE ( “ the DATE report ” ) . In that report the ORG expressed the opinion that the respondent ORG was in breach of its obligations under LAW No . CARDINAL . On DATE ORG CARDINAL ) CARDINAL in respect of the Commission ’s DATE report . In its resolution ORG limited itself to a decision to make the DATE report public and stated that its consideration of the case was thereby completed .

The fourth application , GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) concerned CARDINAL broad categories of complaints : alleged violations of the rights of NORP - Cypriot missing persons and their relatives ; alleged violations of the home and property rights of displaced persons ; alleged violations of the rights of enclaved NORP in northern GPE ; alleged violations of the rights of NORP and the Gypsy community in northern GPE . As regarded the missing persons and their relatives , the ORG adopted the findings of fact of the Commission bearing in mind the latter ’s careful analysis of all material evidence including the findings reached by it in its DATE and DATE reports ( ORG . ORG , DATE , annexed to the ORG ’s judgment ) . Like the ORG , the ORG did not consider it appropriate to estimate the number of persons who fell into the category of “ missing persons ” . The Commission ’s findings had been summarised as follows ;

“ CARDINAL . The ORG found that the evidence submitted to it in the instant case confirmed its earlier findings that certain of the missing persons were last seen in NORP or NORP - Cypriot custody . In this connection , the Commission had regard to the following : a statement of Mr PERSON , “ President of the NORP ” , broadcast on DATE , in which he admitted that CARDINAL NORP - Cypriot prisoners were handed over to NORP - NORP fighters who killed them and that in order to prevent further such killings prisoners were subsequently transferred to GPE ; the broadcast statement of Mr PERSON , a former NORP officer who had served in the NORP army at the time and participated in the DATE military operation in GPE , in which he suggested that the NORP army had engaged in widespread killings of , inter alia , civilians in so - called cleaning - up operations ; ORG submitted to ORG in DATE indicating , inter alia , that NORP and NORP - Cypriot soldiers rounded up NORP - Cypriot civilians in the village of PERSON on DATE and took away males over DATE , most of whom were reportedly killed by NORP - NORP fighters ; the written statements of witnesses tending to corroborate the ORG ’s earlier findings that many persons now missing were taken into custody by NORP soldiers or NORP - Cypriot paramilitaries .

The Commission concluded that , notwithstanding evidence of the killing of NORP - Cypriot prisoners and civilians , there was no proof that any of the missing persons were killed in circumstances for which the respondent ORG could be held responsible ; nor did the ORG find any evidence to the effect that any of the persons taken into custody were still being detained or kept in servitude by the respondent ORG . On the other hand , the ORG found it established that the facts surrounding the fate of the missing persons had not been clarified by the authorities and brought to the notice of the ORG relatives . ”

The Court held that there had been no breach of LAW by reason of an alleged violation of a substantive obligation under that Article in respect of any of the missing persons ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; that there had been a continuing violation of LAW on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent ORG to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of NORP - Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life - threatening circumstances ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; that no breach of LAW had been established ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; that there had been a continuing violation of LAW by virtue of the failure of the authorities of the respondent ORG to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the NORP - Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in NORP custody at the time of their disappearance ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; that no breach of LAW had been established by virtue of the alleged actual detention of NORP - Cypriot missing persons ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; and that it was not necessary to examine the applicant ORG ’s complaints under LAW , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention in respect of the NORP - Cypriot missing persons ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; that there had been a continuing violation of LAW in respect of the relatives of the NORP - Cypriot missing persons ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; and that it was not necessary to examine whether ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention had been violated in respect of the relatives of the NORP - Cypriot missing persons , having regard to the ORG ’s conclusion under LAW ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The facts are disputed by the parties .

The first applicant , an ironmonger , was born in DATE ; he has been considered missing since DATE , having been taken into captivity by ORG during their military action in GPE in DATE . His wife , the second applicant , was born in DATE and resided in GPE .

The applicants were represented by Mr. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , under an authority signed by the second applicant in her own name and on behalf of the first applicant .

In DATE the first applicant , responding to the declared general mobilisation , enlisted as a reservist in the CARDINAL ORG which had its headquarters in GPE . He continued his service at the outposts of ORG until CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL DATE all the reserve soldiers of ORG , among them the applicant , were brought to the area of PERSON ORG and undertook the manning of NORP outposts along the front line with the NORP military forces which extended between PERSON and GPE .

On TIME CARDINAL DATE , NORP military forces , supported by tanks and having air cover , launched an attack against the NORP area where the applicant and his battalion were serving , in order to capture the area from them . The NORP area line of defence was broken through and the NORP military forces began advancing towards the area of PERSON and as a result the NORP forces began retreating . During the retreat that followed , the NORP forces dispersed in all directions . After a while the area around was captured by the NORP military forces and the applicant was cut off in it . As a result the trace of the applicant was lost and he is today still considered to be missing .

Mr. Christakis Ioannou of GPE and now of ORG , who had been a prisoner of ORG and/or NORP authorities and was freed , stated that at ORG prison in GPE , where he had been taken on DATE and held , there were another CARDINAL persons in the same room for DATE . Among them was the applicant . After the said period they were split up and ever since then he has not seen the applicant again .

The first applicant , a student , was born in DATE ; he has been considered missing since DATE , having been taken into captivity by ORG during their military action in GPE in DATE . His father , the second applicant , was born in DATE and resided in GPE .

The applicants are represented by Dr. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , under an authority signed by the second applicant in his own name and on behalf of the first applicant .

In DATE the first applicant was serving as a Second Lieutenant in DATE stationed at Xeros , which took part in various operations against the NORP forces . On DATE the battalion moved up to the ORG area in order to support the NORP forces there . The soldiers were split up into various groups and the applicant was in charge of CARDINAL of these . The applicant ’s group , consisting of CARDINAL men in all , including PERSON and PERSON ( both now missing ) , as well as ORG and PERSON , was ordered to take up positions on the ORG heights . During their stay at ORG NORP forces were continuously attacked by the NORP forces from all sides . The NORP forces remained at their posts defending them until DATE .

On DATE NORP forces launched a strong attack from all sides against the NORP forces’ positions while other NORP troops managed to encircle ORG . Because of NORP superiority in manpower and armour the NORP forces were ordered to retreat towards the centre of the village where the Company base was . The applicant arrived with his comrades at the centre of the village and was informed by the inhabitants that PERSON was surrounded by NORP troops . Then they hid their weapons in an orchard and subsequently put on civilian clothes which they found in various houses . In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant with some comrades attempted to break through the NORP lines and arrive at ORG controlled areas . This attempt was unsuccessful and with the exception of ORG they all returned to ORG again where they spent TIME . At TIME on DATE NORP troops entered PERSON and started extensive searches from house to house . The applicant and all his comrades were warned by the inhabitants of the village about the searches and they dispersed in order to avoid capture . Since then none of the members of the group has seen the applicant again .

Nicos Th . Tampas of ORG and leader of the first group which was manning the ORG heights at CARDINAL August CARDINAL in a statement mentioned that at TIME on DATE , while he was walking in ORG looking for his comrades , he entered a warehouse . In it he found the applicant looking after PERSON who was wounded in the head . After talking for a little while with the applicant he went away leaving him and PERSON there . That was the last time that he saw the applicant . He was arrested by the NORP on CARDINAL DATE while he was in PERSON . He was detained in various prisons in GPE and GPE and was released on DATE .

PERSON of GPE , now of GPE , in his statement declared that while he was a prisoner in the PERSON prison he saw and recognised the applicant whom he had known earlier .

The applicants are represented by Dr. PERSON under an authority signed by the second applicant in his own name and on behalf of the first applicant .

In DATE the first applicant enlisted with ORG in order to do his national service . He was posted with ORG which was stationed at the site of the former ORG ( ORG ) in GPE . On DATE , a section of the battalion consisting of CARDINAL men , including the applicant , was sent to ORG on a specific mission in the ORG and ORG area ( GPE district ) . The mission began at TIME and finished at TIME on DATE . After receiving instructions from the group leader the men spent TIME at ORG and intended to complete the mission TIME .

At TIME on DATE , ORG launched a fullscale attack from all sides in the ORG and ORG area . The applicant ’s group leader ordered his men to split up into CARDINAL groups and to withdraw towards PERSON ( also GPE district ) where they would all meet . The soldiers split up into CARDINAL groups under the respective command of the platoon leaders . The applicant was in CARDINAL of the groups which intended to withdraw following a route along the coast .

The men first reached the main NicosiaKyrenia road near the " Airkotissa " restaurant . While they were having a short rest , they heard shouting and the group leader sent the applicant and another soldier to investigate . As they had not returned after TIME the remainder of the group left for Panagra ( also in the GPE district ) . On their way there , they were ambushed by NORP soldiers and amidst the fighting and confusion that followed , the remaining group dispersed . QUANTITY soldiers from this group , PERSON ( of GPE , now of GPE , GPE ) , PERSON ( of PERSON , GPE ) and PERSON ( of ORG , now of GPE , GPE ) , managed to reach their destination . Until that time when the group dispersed , none of its members including the applicant , had been killed , injured or captured by the NORP .

PERSON , of GPE , stated that , when he was a prisoner in GPE from DATE until DATE , he met the applicant . They were together in the same prison in GPE and were subsequently transferred to GPE whereupon the said PERSON was released but not the applicant .

PERSON , of GPE , who was a prisoner in GPE , GPE , stated that he recognised the first applicant from a photograph that was shown him by the second applicant and he had been with him in the same prison .

Finally , the second applicant mentioned in a signed statement that he identified his missing son in a photograph published in " Athinaiki " , a NORP newspaper , on DATE . In this photograph NORP - Cypriot prisoners were shown on a boat en route to GPE .

The first applicant , a photographer , was born in DATE ; he has been considered missing since DATE , having been taken into captivity by ORG during their military action in GPE in DATE . His mother , the second applicant , was born in DATE and resided in GPE .

The applicants are represented by Mr. PERSON under an authority signed by the second applicant in her own name and on behalf of the first applicant .

On DATE the first applicant enlisted as a reservist in GPE . He was posted in DATE commanded by Mr. PERSON . On DATE he telephoned his mother and told her that he was well and that he was going to be moved to the GPE district . Indeed the whole battalion was ordered to move on DATE to the area of PERSON . ORG took up defensive positions at a height called " Kalambaki " , near the NORP village of GPE .

At TIME on DATE the CARDINALst Company came under attack from the NORP villages of PERSON . The NORP military forces that carried out the attack consisted of a paratroops battalion , QUANTITY tanks , as well as highangle guns . They succeeded in breaking through the NORP lines and infiltrated the right flank of ORG in order to encircle it and enclave its men . The commander ordered the Company to regroup at the NORP village of LOC . There they were ordered by their battalion to regroup again at ORG where they arrived at TIME . After a rollcall they found out that CARDINAL soldiers of ORG were absent , including the applicant . The area in which ORG had been initially stationed was captured by the NORP military forces .

Mr. PERSON of GPE , who was a prisoner at ORG prison ( GPE ) in DATE , stated that DATE , when the prisoners were in the yard , a NORP was calling their names . Among other names , he heard the name of the applicant . He saw the applicant whom he happened to know previously . As the applicant was going back to his cell Mr. PERSON noticed that he was lame in one leg . On DATE Mr. PERSON was taken to Antiyiama prison ( GPE ) and since then he has not seen the applicant again .

The first applicant , a student , was born in DATE ; he has been considered missing since DATE , having been taken into captivity by ORG during their military action in GPE in DATE . His mother , the second applicant , was born in DATE and resided in GPE .

The applicants are represented by Dr. PERSON under an authority signed by the second applicant in her own name and on behalf of the first applicant .

In DATE the first applicant enlisted in ORG to do his military service . He was subsequently promoted to sergeant .

On DATE the applicant visited his relations at ORG and told them that he would be demobilised on DATE . He returned to his unit on DATE . On DATE he telephoned his father and told him that he would not be released after all because of the coup that had taken place in the meantime . On DATE the applicant ’s father was informed by ORG , a GPE factory owner , that he had seen his son at the company ’s headquarters at GPE and that he was well . On DATE the father of the applicant was informed by PERSON that the applicant had left PERSON with the men of ORG and had gone to PERSON .

DATE . On DATE PERSON with CARDINAL soldiers , including the applicant and PERSON , set out from PERSON in CARDINAL vehicles to reconnoitre the ground of the ORG area . Among them were PERSON and PERSON . After PERSON had marked the NORP positions on paper , he went at TIME to the headquarters of CARDINAL of the ORG Units in order to relay by telephone the results of the reconnaissance mission . After TIME QUANTITY buses were seen driving on a street from the direction of ORG village . At about the same time a NORP officer by the name of ORG accompanied by CARDINAL other soldiers went near the men of the reconnaissance patrol . The officer ordered CARDINAL soldiers to come down on the street and search the buses . The buses were full of NORP soldiers who started firing at the NORP - Cypriot men as soon as they became aware of their nationality . The applicant was wounded in the right hand and on the left side of his ribs . Mr. PERSON cleaned his wounds with water , loaded his gun and told him to go back , which he did . After that the applicant was not seen again by his unit .

According to the statement of PERSON , who had been a prisoner of the NORP at ORG and ORG in DATE , he happened to meet the applicant during his captivity . They both stayed with others in Cell No . CARDINAL until DATE . They were chatting together DATE and became friends . On DATE PERSON was brought back to GPE and was released on DATE . The applicant had given him a letter to the applicant ’s father which he forgot in his pocket in the clothes that he changed at ORG in GPE . All those clothes belonging to the prisoners were burned .

The second applicant in her statement mentioned that she had recognised her son in a photograph that was published in the NORP newspaper " Athinaiki " on DATE . The photograph shows NORP prisoners transported to GPE on a NORP destroyer in DATE .

The first applicant , a car mechanic , was born in DATE ; he has been considered missing since DATE , having been taken into captivity by ORG during their military action in GPE in DATE . His father , the second applicant , was born in DATE and resided in GPE .

The applicants are represented by Mr. PERSON under an authority signed by the second applicant in his own name and on behalf of the first applicant .

In DATE , in response to the general mobilisation , the first applicant enlisted as a reserve sergeant in ORG of ORG stationed at LOC , PERSON , with Captain PERSON in charge .

On TIME NORP military forces , supported by naval units and having air cover , succeeded in landing with their armour . All the men of ORG , including the applicant , were trying during the whole of DATE to prevent the NORP landing which was taking place in the area of " Pikro Nero " , PERSON . At TIME on DATE the NORP military forces which had landed , supported by tanks and having air cover , attacked the NORP forces that were defending the area . Owing to the superiority of the NORP military forces in men as well as in weapons ORG was ordered to retreat towards GPE . The applicant was present during the regrouping of the battalion . TIME after the regrouping the commander of the battalion ( who went missing with CARDINAL other soldiers , including the applicant serving as the commander ’s driver ) led his men out of GPE , reaching a ravine between the villages of ORG Georghios and PERSON where they took up battle positions . A number of commandos of ORG arrived in the same ravine . At TIME on DATE , NORP military forces surrounded the NORP forces in the ravine ( between PERSON and PERSON ) and opened fire against them with all their guns . Then the commander ordered a counterattack intending to break through the NORP military forces’ lines and at the same time to retreat towards GPE . During the counterattack and the retreat the applicant ’s trace was lost .

On DATE the " Special News Bulletin " a DATE issue of the NORP administration published a photograph of NORP - Cypriot prisonersofwar under the caption " GreekCypriot prisonersofwar having their lunch . DATE they were visited by a representative of ORG . He toured all the prisonersofwar camps in the area of the island under the NORP control , in order to ascertain the needs of the prisoners . " In that photograph CARDINAL of the prisoners were identified . Among them was the first applicant who was identified by the second applicant .

A former prisoner , Mr. PERSON , of PERSON , now at ORG , in a signed statement to ORG said that during his transportation from GPE to GPE he saw and talked to the first applicant whom he knew very well since they had been together at secondary school .

All abovementioned prisoners had been taken to ORG prison and since that time the applicant had been missing .

The first applicant , a bank employee , was born in DATE and lived at Yialousa ; he has been considered missing since DATE , having been taken into captivity by ORG during their military action in GPE in DATE . His wife , the second applicant , was born in DATE and resided in GPE .

On DATE CARDINAL saloon cars as well as a bus and CARDINAL tanks , all full of NORP and NORP soldiers turned up at Yialousa and stopped near the police station , along the main road . The soldiers got out of their vehicles and ordered all those who were there to gather at the nearby coffeehouse of PERSON . CARDINAL persons gathered there . Subsequently , a NORP officer told them that from that time they would be under NORP administration and ordered them to make a census of the NORP inhabitants of the village starting from DATE and that he would be back on DATE to collect the lists . On DATE , the same civilian and military vehicles ( tanks ) returned and parked near the police station . A number of NORP got off , marched to PERSON coffeehouse and asked for the lists . Another group of NORP soldiers were carrying out a housetohouse search . They imposed a curfew and , having taken the lists , they took with them for questioning QUANTITY persons , including the first applicant . They put them on a bus and drove them outside the village in the direction of GPE . The said NORP Cypriots were still missing .

On DATE , the village of GPE was visited by ORG men to whom the arrest of the CARDINAL NORP Cypriots was reported by their covillagers .

According to the applicants , Representatives of ORG in GPE visited ORG in the Turkishoccupied sector of GPE and on CARDINAL DATE recorded the names of CARDINAL NORP Cypriots held there , including the QUANTITY persons from PERSON ( citing document EZYCARDINALD ) . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON also saw the said detainees at FAC , during the same period that they were detained there ; they were released later .

On DATE a group of NORP civilians came to GPE looking for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . Having found them , they led them to ORG in order to search and seal the building . They all entered the building . After having emptied CARDINAL safes they ordered that the third one should be opened , but they were told that the keys were with the applicant . Subsequently they left , after having shut and sealed the outside door . After DATE the same group looked for the same persons and went again to the bank building . They had the CARDINAL keys for the safe which the applicant always carried with him . Loizos NORP opened the safe . The keys were in a leather case which the applicant had , but his personal keys were not included . ORG took the contents of the safe , sealed the gate and left .

The first applicant , a moulder , was born in DATE ; he has been considered missing since DATE , having been taken into captivity by ORG during their military action in GPE in DATE . His father , the second applicant , was born in DATE and resided in GPE .

In DATE the first applicant was doing his national service in ORG stationed at the site of the former ORG ( ORG ) in GPE . On DATE a section of the battalion consisting of CARDINAL men , including the applicant , was sent to ORG on a specific mission in the ORG and ORG area . The mission began at TIME and was completed at TIME DATE . After receiving instructions from the section leader , PERSON , the men spent TIME at ORG and intended to complete their mission TIME . At TIME on DATE the NORP military forces launched a fullscale attack from all sides in the area of PERSON and ORG . The Commander of the ORG ordered his men to split up into CARDINAL groups , withdraw towards GPE and meet there . The CARDINAL groups set off intending to reach the prearranged point . On their way they were ambushed by the NORP military forces . Because of the NORP military forces’ fire and the confusion that followed all the Engineers dispersed . Up to the time of the dispersion no member of the group had been killed , injured or captured by the NORP military forces .

Later on Mr. PERSON of Omorphita , now of GPE , who was taken as a prisoner to GPE prison in GPE , saw the applicant there on or about CARDINAL DATE , while he was about to return to GPE . They did not speak to each other but waved . Mr. PERSON recognised the applicant since he had known him since they were children .

The first applicant , a worker , was born in DATE ; he has been considered missing since DATE , having been taken into captivity by ORG during their military action in GPE in DATE . His wife , the second applicant , was born in DATE and resided in GPE .

The applicants are represented by Mr. PERSON under an authority signed by the second applicant in her own name and on behalf of the first applicant .

On DATE , following the general mobilisation , the first applicant enlisted as a reservist in FAC ORG stationed at ORG , PERSON . He was put in ORG ) . On DATE the battalion captured the NORP village of GPE . On DATE the battalion moved to the PERSON area to reinforce the NORP forces there and to man the NORP - Cypriot outposts on the front line .

On TIME CARDINAL DATE NORP military forces , supported by tanks and having air cover , launched a heavy attack against the Greek- NORP forces in the area , where the applicant was with his battalion , intending to occupy the area . Owing to the superiority of the NORP military forces the NORP - Cypriot defence line was broken , the NORP military forces began to advance towards the PERSON Milia area , and the NORP forces began to retreat . The area was , in a short while , occupied by the NORP military forces and the applicant was enclaved in it . His trace was lost .

The exprisoner of war , Mr. PERSON of ORG , now at ORG , stated that during his detention at Antiyama , GPE , he saw the applicant who was detained in cellblock No . CARDINAL . On DATE all the prisoners at Antiyama were taken to ORG . There they were all lined up in CARDINAL rows . A NORP military officer walked in front of the line and picked out some of the prisoners , who were taken away from the line . From DATE the applicant was picked out and taken away . Since then Mr. PERSON has not seen the applicant ever again and he has been missing until DATE .

The respondent Government disputed that the applicants had been taken into captivity by the NORP army during the military action in GPE in DATE . They considered that the inevitable conclusion from the information provided in the application forms was that all the alleged " missing persons " , except for PERSON , were military personnel who died in action in DATE .

The Government noted that , since the introduction of these applications , files relating to the same “ missing persons ” had been submitted by ORG to ORG ( CMP ) in GPE during DATE . In these files there were no assertions that these people had been seen in any of the alleged prisons in GPE . The names of the alleged witnesses listed in application nos . CARDINAL ( ORG ) , CARDINAL ( PERSON ) , PERSON ( PERSON ) , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( PERSON ) , CARDINAL ( PERSON ) , CARDINAL ( Efstathios Selefcou ) , MONEY ( ORG ) and CARDINAL ( PERSON ) were not cited in support . The alleged sightings were therefore without foundation .

DATE . As regarded PERSON ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , who was a civilian , the Government noted that ORG had visited ORG where he had allegedly been held but his name , contrary to the ORG assertion , did not appear in the list of NORP Cypriots held . In any event , it was a transit centre where people were not held for DATE before being released or moved elsewhere . In the file submitted to the ORG , there is only a reference to witnesses seeing the key case which he was alleged to carry continually on his person . The materials of the ICRC who paid regular visits to prisoners and internees in GPE also showed that none of the alleged missing persons had been brought to GPE or detained . All prisoners that had been taken to GPE were repatriated DATE and DATE and lists of those concerned were handed over to the NORP - Cypriot authorities .

As concerned the alleged identification of the missing persons in photographs , the Government pointed out that a scientific investigation of certain published photographs and documentary film had been carried out by Professor PERSON of ORG at the request of the Third Member of the ORG . This had shown that it was extremely dubious that anyone could be identified from these documents and that any alleged identification by relatives was unreliable given the quality of the material and their emotional feelings .

The Government of GPE submitted that the first applicants went missing in areas under the control of the NORP forces .

These CARDINAL applicants had been brought with their units to the area of PERSON to man NORP outposts along the front line . On DATE NORP armed forces launched the attack which gained them control over the whole of northern and eastern GPE by DATE . The attack on PERSON involved ground forces supported by tanks and air cover . When the NORP forces broke through the NORP line of defence and advanced on PERSON , the NORP forces retreated and dispersed in all directions . The NORP forces rapidly controlled the entire surrounding area . Many NORP soldiers , including the CARDINAL applicants , were cut off and completely surrounded . They could not have escaped as the intervening Government would have known of their fate . If they were either killed or wounded in the area under NORP control , the respondent Government was under an obligation to explain what happened to them .

This first applicant was in charge of soldiers amongst those defending PERSON . After the NORP forces encircled ORG , the NORP - Cypriot forces were ordered to retreat . The applicant ’s group hid their weapons , put on civilian clothing and unsuccessfully tried to break out of the village . When the NORP forces entered the village TIME , the applicant ’s group dispersed to avoid capture . At TIME on DATE , the applicant was seen by PERSON . Tampas in a warehouse tending a soldier injured in the head ( PERSON , also still missing ) . Tampas was later captured and detained . His was the last reported sighting of the first applicant . It was most likely that the first applicant had remained with the injured man and was taken into detention by the NORP forces who were in control of the entire area . Only one man was known to have escaped from the village and he , unlike the first applicant , had local knowledge of the terrain .

NORP Under attack from the NORP army , the first applicant ’s unit was ordered to split into CARDINAL group ’s and withdraw westwards . The applicant ’s group reached the GPE - GPE road , QUANTITY metres from the Airkotissa restaurant where they had a short rest . The applicant and another man were sent to investigate shouting coming from the restaurant . After TIME when they did not return , the group left for Panagra . They were ambushed en route – six of them managed to escape and the rest were all missing . At the time that the applicant and the other soldier were sent to the restaurant , there were clearly NORP forces in the area . The most plausible explanation for the QUANTITY men not returning , in the absence of any sound of fighting or shooting , was that they had been detained , either to prevent them giving away the NORP positions , for information or as prisoners of war .

On DATE the first applicant was discovered to be missing from his unit at roll call after they had broken through an encircling manœuvre by NORP forces . The area in which his unit had been stationed was captured by NORP forces . It was not known whether the applicant was injured and detained or injured and died of injuries or killed at once . Whatever happened to him however occurred in an area controlled by the NORP forces . The respondent Government had been under an obligation to notify ORG as to what had happened to him but had not done so .

This applicant was seen wounded in his right hand and the left side of the ribs after a clash between NORP - Cypriot forces and CARDINAL buses full of NORP soldiers coming from ORG village . His wounds were cleaned by a witness PERSON and he was told to make his way uphill with CARDINAL other men , CARDINAL of whom was also injured , to the monastery where the NORP forces were . The other QUANTITY men were later found by the same man who went to get help . The NORP forces could not however reach them due to the presence of NORP forces . The other QUANTITY men were discovered dead DATE when the NORP forces withdrew . It was clear that the applicant was found either dead by the NORP forces or else found and detained in an injured condition . The latter was more likely . However the respondent Government had not provided information about either the finding of a dead combatant or the detention of a wounded prisoner of war .

This applicant was amongst those attempting to prevent the invasion of GPE . Some individuals were identified as killed in the operation ; the applicant was not amongst them . The respondent Government had not provided information that the applicant was found dead or otherwise and the intervening Government had no evidence that this applicant was dead . It had to be assumed that the applicant had been detained alive .

This was further corroborated by the photograph published in the " Special News Bulletin " issued DATE by the NORP administration on DATE , of NORP prisoners - of - war having their lunch . CARDINAL prisoners in the photograph had been identified . The first applicant was identified by his father , the second applicant . This identification took place at the time , not with the benefit of hindsight and no other person has suggested that the photograph was of someone else .

By DATE NORP forces were in control of the northern and eastern GPE including the NORP peninsula where the first applicant worked as general cashier in ORG in GPE . On DATE NORP and NORP soldiers arrived in the village and a NORP officer ordered a census of ORG DATE . DATE , the lists were handed over and NORP soldiers carried out searches . They left , taking with them on a bus , QUANTITY individuals , including the first applicant . This was reported by fellow villagers .

On DATE , after the applicant had been detained DATE , NORP civilians came to the village asking for CARDINAL named individuals , CARDINAL of whom worked at ORG . They took the CARDINAL men to the bank and searched it . They emptied CARDINAL safes and were told that the applicant had the keys to the third . After DATE ORG returned , looking for the CARDINAL bank employees . They had the CARDINAL keys for the remaining safe which the first applicant had always carried with him : the keys were in a leather case belonging to the applicant although his own personal keys had been removed . ORG took the contents of the safe . It was highly probable that the NORP Cypriots had obtained the keys from those holding the first applicant , showing that he was alive and in detention for DATE . There was some evidence that he was detained after DATE , at least until DATE , at the ORG garage .

This first applicant withdrew with his section from ORG towards GPE . They were ambushed by NORP military forces and dispersed on account of the fighting and confusion . There has been no news of the applicant since . The NORP forces were in sufficient control of the area to undertake a successful ambush . The intervening Government had no knowledge of the first applicant , which meant that he had not escaped . Nor was there any evidence that he was killed in the ambush . It was overwhelmingly likely that he had been detained by the NORP armed forces .

NORP In DATE , in the context of the activity of ORG ( see below paragraphs CARDINAL ) human remains were exhumed from a mass grave near the NORP village of GPE in the NORP area . After anthropological and genetic analyses , the remains of applicant , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , see paragraphs DATE , DATE , DATE above ) were identified , along with the remains of the other CARDINAL missing persons from GPE and CARDINAL other missing NORP Cypriots . The bodies of the CARDINAL missing persons from Yialousa were lined up next to each other in the grave , with CARDINAL other bodies on top at a shallower depth . Several bullets from firearms were found in the grave . The medical certificate issued on DATE in regard to PERSON , indicated a bullet wound to the skull , a bullet wound in the right arm and a wound on the right thigh . His family was notified and a religious funeral took place on DATE .

The following paragraphs are taken from ORG in the interstate case ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) :

The ORG was set up in DATE . According to its terms of reference , it “ shall only look into cases of persons reported missing in the intercommunal fighting as well as in the events of DATE and afterwards . ” Its tasks have been circumscribed as follows : “ to draw up comprehensive lists of missing persons of both communities , specifying as appropriate whether they are alive or dead , and in the latter case approximate time of the deaths . ” It was further specified that “ the committee will not attempt to attribute responsibility for the deaths of any missing persons or make findings as to the cause of such deaths ” and that “ no disinterment will take place under the aegis of this committee . The committee may refer requests for disinterment to the ICRC for processing under its customary procedures . ” “ All parties concerned ” are required to co - operate with the committee to ensure access throughout the island for its investigative work . Nothing is provided as regards investigations in mainland GPE or concerning the NORP armed forces in GPE .

The ORG consists of CARDINAL members , CARDINAL “ humanitarian person ” being appointed by the NORP - Cypriot side and one by the NORP - NORP side and the third member being an “ official selected by the ICRC ... with the agreement of both sides and appointed by the Secretary - General of the ORG ” .

The ORG has no permanent chairman , the presidency rotating on a DATE basis between all CARDINAL members . Decisions are to be taken by consensus to the extent possible . According to the procedural rules agreed upon in DATE , the procedure is to be conducted as follows :

" CARDINAL . Individual or collective cases will be presented to the ORG with all possible information . The ORG will refer each case to the side on whose territory the missing person disappeared ; this side will undertake a complete research and present to the ORG a written report . It is the duty of the ORG members appointed by each side , or their assistants , to follow the enquiries undertaken on the territory of their side ; the third member and/or his assistants will be fully admitted to participate in the enquiries .

The ORG will make case decisions on the basis of the elements furnished by both sides and by ORG of the ICRC : presumed alive , dead , disappeared without visible or other traceable signs .

If the ORG is unable to reach a conclusion on the basis of the information presented , a supplementary investigation will be undertaken at the request of a ORG member . The third ORG member and/or his assistants will participate in each supplementary investigation , or , as the case may be , investigators recruited by the ORG with the agreement of both sides . "

The DATE rules state as “ guiding principles ” that “ investigations will be conducted in the sole interest of the families concerned and must therefore convince them . Every possible means will be used to trace the fate of the missing persons . ” The families of missing persons may address communications to the committee which will be passed on to its appropriate member . That member will eventually provide the family with " final information as to the fate of a particular missing person " , but no interim information must be given by any member of the committee to the family of a missing person during the discussion of a particular case .

The committee ’s entire proceedings and findings are strictly confidential , but it can issue public statements or reports without prejudice to this rule . According to the DATE procedural rules , a press release will be issued at the close of a meeting or series of meetings and occasional progress reports will also be published . Individual members may make additional statements to the press or the media , provided they comply with the rule of confidentiality , avoid criticism or contradiction to the joint statement and any kind of propaganda .

Due to the strict confidentiality of the ORG ’s procedure , no detailed information about the progress and results of its work is available . However , from the relevant sections of the regular progress reports on ORG in GPE submitted by the ORG Secretary - General to ORG it appears that the committee ’s work started in DATE with a limited , equal number of cases on both sides ( Doc . S/CARDINAL of CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ) ; that by DATE an advanced stage had been reached in the investigation of the initial CARDINAL individual cases , supplementary investigations being started in CARDINAL cases in which reports had been submitted ( Doc . S/CARDINAL/Add . CARDINAL , of DATE , para . CARDINAL ) ; and that , while no difficulties were encountered as regards the organisation of interviews or visits in the field , real difficulties then arose by the lapse of time and , even more importantly , lack of cooperation by the witnesses .

This prompted the committee to issue a lengthy press release on CARDINAL DATE ( ORG . S/CARDINAL/Annex ) . There the committee stated that it considered the co - operation of the witnesses as absolutely fundamental , but that the witnesses were often reluctant , unwilling or unable to give full information as to their knowledge about the disappearance of a missing person . However , the committee could not compel a witness to talk . The explanation of the witnesses’ reluctance to testify was that they were afraid of incriminating themselves or others in disappearances , and this despite the witnesses being told by the committee that the information given would be kept strictly confidential and being reassured that they would “ not be subject to any form of police or judicial prosecution ” . The committee appealed to the parties concerned to encourage the witnesses to give the very fullest information in their knowledge . It further stated :

" In order to further allay the fears of the witnesses , the ORG , so as to give the strongest guarantees to the witnesses , is examining measures that could be taken to ensure that they would be immune from possible judicial and/or police proceedings solely in connection with the issue of missing persons and for any statement , written or oral , made for ORG in the pursuit of activities within its mandate . "

In the same press release , the committee pointed out that it considered as legitimate the desire of the families to obtain identifiable remains of missing persons . However , despite systematic enquiries on burial places of missing persons , on both sides , it had not been successful in this respect . It recalled that according to its terms of reference it could not itself order disinterments . Moreover , while there was access to all evidence available , the committee had not reached the stage of finding a common denominator for the appreciation of the value of this evidence . Finally , the committee stated that it was considering the possibility of requesting that the CARDINAL sides furnish it with basic information concerning the files of all missing persons , so as to allow it to have a global view of the whole problem .

In DATE , the ORG Secretary - General wrote a letter to the leaders of both sides observing that so far the committee had been given details on PERCENT of the cases and urging them to submit all cases . He further emphasised the importance of reaching consensus on the criteria that both sides would be ready to apply in their respective investigations . Moreover , the committee should consider modalities for sharing with affected families any meaningful information available ( ORG . S/CARDINAL , of CARDINAL DATE , para . CARDINAL ) . On DATE , in a further letter to the leaders of both communities the ORG Secretary - General noted that no improvement had been made and that the international community would not understand that the committee , DATE after it had become operational , remained unable to function effectively . Only CARDINAL cases had been submitted by the NORP - Cypriot side and CARDINAL by the NORP - NORP side . He again urged both sides to submit all cases without further delay and the committee to reach a consensus on the criteria for concluding its investigations ( Doc . S/CARDINAL , of DATE , paras . PERCENT CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG Secretary - General , on the basis of a report of the ORG ’s third member and proposals by both sides , put forward compromise proposals on criteria for concluding the investigations ( Doc . PERSON , of DATE , para . CARDINAL ) , which were subsequently accepted by both sides ( Doc . S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of DATE , para . CARDINAL ) . By DATE , the NORP side submitted all their case files ( CARDINAL ) . However , the committee ’s third member withdrew in DATE and the ORG Secretary - General made it a condition for appointing a new one that certain outstanding questions , including classification of cases , sequence of investigations , priorities and expeditious collection of information on cases without known witnesses , be settled beforehand ( Doc . S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of DATE , para . CARDINAL ) . After being repeatedly urged to resolve these issues ( Doc . S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of DATE , paras . CARDINAL -CARDINAL ) , both parties eventually came to an agreement on DATE on the exchange of information on the location of graves of missing persons and return of their remains . They also requested the appointment of a new third member of the CMP ( ORG . ORG , of DATE , paras . CARDINAL and DATE ) . However , by DATE , no progress had been made towards the implementation of this agreement . The ORG Secretary - General noted in this context that the NORP - Cypriot side had claimed that victims of the coup ORG against Archbishop PERSON in DATE were among the persons listed as missing and that this position deviated from the agreement ( Doc . S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of DATE , paras . CARDINAL ) .

A new third member of the ORG had , by the time of the ORG ’s report , been appointed ( ibid . para . CARDINAL ) . The ORG has not completed its investigations and accordingly the families of the missing persons have not been informed of the latter ’s fate .

In DATE the ORG began a substantial exhumation project on identified burial sites with a view to identifying the remains of bodies and ensuring their return to their families . A special unit to provide information to families had also been set up . CARDINAL sets of bones had been submitted for analysis and identifications of missing persons , including PERSON , had been made and were likely to continue .


Mr NORP Di PERSON and PERSON PERSON are surveyors living in PERSON .

On DATE they instituted proceedings against ORG in ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , seeking judicial review of a decision of the Ministry assigning them , at the time when they were recruited to permanent posts , to a category of staff and salary scale lower than those to which they considered themselves to be entitled on the basis of the duties they had performed as temporary staff .

On DATE they applied to the President of the ORG for a date to be fixed for the hearing . On DATE they filed an application for the case to be set down for an urgent hearing .

On a date which is not specified in the file the ORG set down the case for hearing on DATE .

According to the information supplied by the applicants , the ORG required ORG , in an interlocutory judgment of DATE , to produce certain documents which have still not been filed . On DATE the applicants asked for a date to be fixed for the hearing .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was employed with a private commercial company . The company was associated with PERSON and his son , PERSON , who both held shares in it and were also involved in its management . The company took credits from a bank .

The applicant provided security for the repayment of the bank credits by pledging in favour of the bank his savings which he had in an account at the bank . In order to secure his potential claims against the company and to provide for his compensation , the applicant and the company concluded CARDINAL contracts in DATE , respectively .

Mr A. then sold his share in the company to a third individual . The company subsequently failed to meet its payment obligations towards the bank and became insolvent . The bank consequently seized the corresponding amounts from the applicant 's account . The applicant has received no indemnification from the company .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecution service accusing GPE and B. of having committed criminal offences of fraud , fraudulent insolvency and usury in connection with the above transaction . At the same time , he requested that his claim for damages be secured under LAW .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant inter alia that the possibility of securing an aggrieved party 's claim for damages only existed at the stage of proceedings after a criminal charge had been raised . As by that time no charges had been raised in the present case , the applicant 's claim could not be secured .

The applicant 's criminal complaint was examined by ORG which dismissed it , on DATE , finding that there was no case to answer . The decision indicated in its reasoning that the applicant had been interviewed and that , in the course of the interview , he had specified the amount of the damage which he had sustained when standing as surety for the above bank credits . The applicant challenged this decision by a complaint ( sťažnosť ) which was determined by ORG on DATE . The prosecutor 's decision contained information about the specific amount of the damage which the applicant had allegedly sustained . The prosecutor quashed the challenged decision as being premature .

The applicant 's criminal complaint was dismissed again on DATE and , on his further complaints , on DATE and DATE . All these decisions refer inter alia to the applicant 's criminal complaint of CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The applicant challenged the decision of DATE by numerous further complaints addressed to all levels of the public prosecution service . He alleged in particular that if no charges were brought promptly , there was the risk that the prosecution would become statutebarred .

On DATE ORG transmitted the complaints that had been submitted to him to ORG who , in turn , transmitted the respective complaints to ORG . The latter was instructed to ensure the commencement of criminal proceedings in the matter because the previous examination of the factual and legal side of the case had not been adequate .

On DATE ORG issued an instruction to the investigator under LAW ( a ) of LAW directing him to commence a criminal prosecution on the basis of a suspicion that a criminal offence of infringing creditors ' rights within the meaning of LAW ( a ) and LAW of LAW had been committed . The instruction referred to the applicant 's criminal complaints and also indicated that criminal proceedings should be commenced in connection with certain other creditors .

On DATE ORG formally commenced a criminal prosecution under LAW of LAW against CARDINAL or more unknown persons alleging that they had infringed the applicant 's rights as a creditor .

On DATE the investigator interviewed the applicant . In response to his enquiry the applicant stated expressly that he wished his claim for damages to be joined to the criminal proceedings pursuant to LAW .

DATE the investigator interviewed CARDINAL witnesses . DATE and DATE the investigator summoned PERSON and PERSON several times for an interview . As they ignored the summons , the investigator had PERSON brought to the interview by the police ( predvedenie ) and asked that a nationwide search ( pátranie ) be carried out for A. who eventually came of his own accord .

On DATE and B. were charged with the offences of infringing the right of the applicant as a creditor pursuant to the above decision of DATE . They both appealed against this decision and their appeals were dismissed by ORG on DATE .

In DATE the investigator invited ORG and all banks in GPE to disclose information concerning the real property and bank accounts of GPE and ORG search in the registry of motor vehicles was subsequently carried out .

During the proceedings , the applicant submitted , on numerous occasions , new evidence and made other written submissions and suggestions as regards the course of the investigation . He further complained several times about the way in which the proceedings were being conducted and filed unsuccessful complaints and criminal complaints against the investigators , prosecutor and other persons involved in the case .

NORP The criminal proceedings are still pending .

In DATE the applicant who was represented by a lawyer lodged a complaint under LAW with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) . He asserted a violation of his right to a hearing “ without unjustified delay ” under LAW and his right to a hearing “ within a reasonable time ” under LAW in the proceedings before ORG in respect of his criminal complaint of CARDINAL DATE . He claimed CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) by way of compensation in respect of nonpecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It observed that the primary aim of criminal proceedings is to detect criminal offences and to punish the perpetrators and not to determine the aggrieved parties ' claims for damages . Aggrieved parties ' claims for damages were of a private law nature and were predominantly claims to be asserted in civil courts . The possibility of claiming damages in criminal proceedings was a privilege which did not make the determination of such claims the central issue of the proceedings and was limited by the above main aim of the proceedings . ORG concluded that aggrieved parties in criminal proceedings did not enjoy the right to have their claims for damages determined without unjustified delay ( LAW ) . In making this conclusion , ORG relied on its previous decisions in cases file nos . LAW . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON . ÚS PERSON and PERSON . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL . It later upheld this line of reasoning in the decision in the case file no . PERSON . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

NORP In DATE the applicant turned to ORG again . He argued that ORG decision of DATE was erroneous and reiterated his complaint concerning the length of the proceedings in respect of his criminal complaint of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It held that its decision of DATE was final and subject to no appeal . The matter at hand thus had to be considered res iudicata and could not be reviewed again .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

Standing as an aggrieved party ( poškodený ) in criminal proceedings is governed by the seventh Section ( Oddiel ) of the second LAW ) .

Article QUANTITY provides , inter alia , that a person who has suffered pecuniary or nonpecuniary damage as a result of a criminal offence , may claim compensation from the accused and request the court , when convicting the accused , to order him or her to pay compensation for the damage . The aggrieved party further has the right to adduce evidence and to comment on it , to inspect the court file , to take part in the hearing and to make submissions .

Article CARDINAL et seq . provide for the possibility of securing the claim of an aggrieved party for damages by impounding the charged person 's property in situations when there is a well - founded suspicion that the payment of the claim would be hindered or frustrated .

Standing as an aggrieved party is governed by the eighth Section of the second Chapter .

Persons who have suffered health , property , moral , or other damage ; or whose legally protected rights or freedoms have been violated or jeopardized as a result of a criminal offence are considered aggrieved parties . They have inter alia the right to claim compensation in respect of their damage ; to adduce evidence and to comment on it ; to inspect the court file ; to take part in the hearing ; to make submissions etc . ( LAW ) .

An aggrieved party , who has a lawful claim against the accused person ( obvinený ) for compensation in respect of a damage resulting from a criminal offence , has the right to propose that a guilty verdict should include an order for compensation . The proposal must be made at latest by the closure of the investigation and must indicate the ground and scope of the claim ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL et seq . provide for the possibility of securing the claim of an aggrieved party for damages in situations when there is a well - founded suspicion that the payment of the claim would be hindered or frustrated .

Under LAW if proceedings commence in relation to a specific matter , the same matter can not be made the subject of other judicial proceedings . If a claim for damages is duly lodged in criminal proceedings , it is considered a lis pendens from the point of view of LAW ( ORG súdnych rozhodnutí a stanovísk ) , No . CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW if creditors make and duly pursue a claim in respect of their rights before a court or another authority , the statute of limitations is stayed from DATE the claim is made . This includes the making of a civil - party claim for damages in criminal proceedings including in their pretrial stage ( see , for example , ORG and Standpoints Nos . ORG , ORG and DATE and ORG and Standpoints ( PERSON rozhodnutí a stanovísk ) No . CARDINAL ) .


Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE ( GPE ) .

The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , ORG at ORG .

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

The applicant stood trial for murder . He was a minor at the time of the events which gave rise to the accusation . During the trial the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and his father as his statutory representative . On DATE the Yashkinskiy ORG of the Kemerovo Region convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer as well as his father lodged appeals before ORG . On DATE the applicant lodged his own brief of appeal against his conviction . He made a special request to ensure his participation in the appeal hearing .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request for his participation in the appeal hearing which was set for DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged written requests with ORG to hold the appeal hearing in his absence .

On DATE ORG held the appeal hearing . The applicant ’s lawyer did not appear . The public prosecutor was present and made his oral submissions . ORG examined the appeals lodged by the applicant and his lawyer , held that the applicant should serve a prison sentence in a colony with less stringent conditions of detention than that indicated in the judgment , and upheld the remainder of the judgment . The father ’s appeal was declared inadmissible because his authority to represent the applicant had expired due to the fact that the latter had reached the age of majority during the trial . It appears that the father was present at the hearing but was not allowed to make submissions on the applicant ’s behalf .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted an application for the applicant ’s release on probation . On DATE the applicant was released .

On DATE , on request by the acting Prosecutor of GPE , the Presidium of ORG , by way of supervisory review proceedings , quashed the appeal judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination before the appellate court . The ORG found that , in breach of procedural law , the applicant ’s right to legal assistance had been infringed , and that the appeal lodged by his statutory representative ( father ) had not been examined .

On DATE ORG held a fresh appeal hearing . The statutory representative and a legal - aid defense lawyer participated in the hearing . The applicant did not appear . It follows from TIME of the hearing that he was summonsed but asked the appellate court to examine the case in his absence . The court studied the case file and heard oral submissions made by the defence lawyer , statutory representative and the public prosecutor . The defence , in particular , pointed to numerous procedural violations , and asked to quash the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and to remit the applicant ’s case to the trial court for a fresh examination . By judgment of the same date , the appellate court upheld the applicant ’s conviction and the sentence . According to the TIME of the hearing , the defence raised no objections as regards the conduct of the proceedings .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Damage, costs and expenses - global award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , the GPE region , GPE .

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the GPE ORG against ORG “ PERSON ” ( the “ NORP ” ) , in which the ORG held PERCENT of the share capital . She sought the recovery of salary arrears . On DATE the court awarded her ORG CARDINAL in salary arrears and other payments .

On DATE the ORG instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment .

In DATE the applicant filed an application with the labour disputes commission of the ORG , seeking recovery of salary arrears . On CARDINAL DATE the labour disputes commission allowed the applicant ’s claims and ordered the ORG to pay the applicant ORG in arrears . On DATE the commission issued a certificate in respect of its decision of CARDINAL DATE , which had the same status as a writ of execution issued by a court .

On DATE the ORG instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the commission ’s decision .

NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against the ORG , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage . On DATE the court found against the applicant . On DATE the same court rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal for failure to comply with procedural formalities . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE could not be executed due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the ORG and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor company had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to ORG enterprises introduced by the Order of the President of GPE of DATE .

By CARDINAL decisions of DATE , ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the decisions had been enforced in full .

NORP The applicant did not challenge these decisions of ORG before the domestic courts .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

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

The applicant claims that he was accused of involvement in terrorism while in GPE . He escaped prison in DATE and subsequently fled the country . Thereafter he lived in GPE , GPE and GPE respectively . He requested refugee status from the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ the ORG ” ) in GPE and his request was rejected . He fled to GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in Hatay . He claimed before the ORG that his asylum requests were not taken into account at the time of his arrest . The Government asserted that the applicant had not initially claimed asylum . He had stated before the national authorities that he had left GPE for economic reasons and had paid money to human smugglers to be brought to GPE where he aimed to find work . In support of their observations the Government submitted the applicant 's statement taken on DATE he was arrested . The document is signed , inter alia , by the applicant as well as a translator .

On DATE the applicant contacted a lawyer who works with the ORG in GPE and stated that he was denied access to the asylum procedure . On DATE he contacted the ORG office in GPE and requested to be recognised as a refugee .

On DATE the applicant requested an interim measure from the ORG under Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court . He alleged that his deportation to GPE would expose him to the risk of unfair trial and subsequent imprisonment , ill - treatment or even death . In this connection the applicant invoked Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention . On DATE the ORG decided to indicate the interim measure until further notice . The Government were asked a number of questions and both parties were requested to submit relevant documents .

On DATE the ORG interviewed the applicant . The refugee status assessment proceedings are pending before the ORG .

On DATE and DATE the applicant requested asylum from ORG and the Governorship of GPE , respectively .

On DATE the authorities notified the applicant through the assistance of a translator that he was granted a temporary residence permit in LOC . It appears from the case file that the applicant 's wife and children who were in GPE joined him in LOC and were issued with asylum seeker certificates by the ORG on DATE . The applicant 's children were registered in local schools .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was a shareholder in a private bank .

In DATE he had a disagreement with the bank as to the redemption of CARDINAL shares and consequently he brought an action against the bank , seeking compensation of CARDINAL Moldovan Lei ( MDL ) .

On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant and awarded him MDL CARDINAL . Both the applicant and the bank appealed against that judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal but upheld the bank ’s appeal . By its judgment it rejected the applicant ’s claim . The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation .

On DATE ORG upheld the appeal in cassation and by its judgment ordered the bank to pay the applicant MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . The judgment became final and enforceable on DATE .

NORP In DATE ORG filed a request for annulment of the judgment of ORG of DATE , and asked ORG to uphold the judgment of ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG request for annulment and quashed the final judgment of ORG of DATE . The judgment of ORG of DATE became final .

On DATE , following a request by ORG , ORG applied to ORG for the revision of its judgment of DATE . The application was based on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , by a final decision , ORG admitted ORG revision application and quashed its judgment of DATE . It found the Prosecutor General ’s request justified since inter alia the quashing of the final judgment of ORG of DATE constituted a breach of the principle of legal certainty and consequently was in breach of LAW . The judgment of DATE became final again .

The old Code of Civil Procedure of DATE , repealed on DATE

Upon request from a party to the proceedings , ORG and his deputies can file a request for annulment with ORG against any final decision of the domestic courts .

The request for annulment can be filed in the following cases :

- when the final judgment lacks a legal basis or has been delivered in breach of the law or the law was wrongly applied ;

- when the issuing court has exceeded its jurisdiction ;

- when offences has been committed by judges in connection with the final decision .

There is no time limit for filing a request for annulment .

The request for annulment has to be made in written form and has to contain the reasons provided for in LAW . The request for annulment has to be filed in as many copies as there are participants to the proceedings . ORG or his deputies can withdraw the request for annulment at any time before the closure of pleadings in the case , by prior notice , stating the reasons for the withdrawal . In such a case , the parties to the proceedings may request the continuation of the proceedings .

The proceedings related to the request for annulment shall be governed by the rules set forth in LAW of LAW . The presence of ORG at the proceedings is compulsory .

The new Code of Civil Procedure , entered into force on DATE

Grounds for revision .

The revision may be requested :

j ) When ORG has started a procedure of friendly settlement in a case where ORG is a ORG , and the Government consider that by a final decision of a court a fundamental right guaranteed by LAW or by LAW has been breached .