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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by Mr P. GPE , the former Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

On DATE the police department of GPE of GPE started an investigation of a residential burglary committed in the district earlier ( criminal case no . DATE ) .

On DATE the police investigator questioned an eyewitness to that burglary , who identified the applicant as CARDINAL of the perpetrators . The investigator questioned the applicant , who denied involvement in that crime . The Government submitted a copy of the record of interview , signed by the applicant . On several occasions the applicant was questioned by an investigator in charge of criminal case no . DATE . However , no charges were brought against him . In DATE the investigation into the burglary was stayed .

According to the applicant , on DATE , at TIME , his car was stopped on the road . Police officers in plain clothes pulled the applicant out of his car and took him to the nearby police station . The applicant submitted that he had been arrested in connection with the burglary , and that the policemen had been trying to extort a confession from him .

At TIME a report of an “ administrative offence ” was drawn up by the police officers . The report stated that the applicant had been detained near the GPE metro station for using obscene language in a public place . The police confiscated his belongings , without making a record of what they had done , and locked the applicant in a cell .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was brought before a judge of ORG of GPE . The applicant claimed that he had not been given access to the case file , the judge had not allowed him to present his arguments and that , despite his requests , he had not been allowed to have a lawyer .

The judge sentenced the applicant to DATE “ administrative detention ” ( a sanction for public disturbance , provided by LAW see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . The court decision referred to the police report and statements of CARDINAL of the policemen who had allegedly arrested the applicant near the metro station . The text of the decision indicated that it was not subject to any appeal and that the applicant had refused to sign it . The applicant claimed that he had never been served with a copy of the decision , or even seen it . He had never refused to sign the second page of the court 's judgment , since he had not seen it . He was informed about the sentence by the policemen escorting him .

On DATE the applicant took part in an identification parade within case no . DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's relatives contacted his lawyer , who went immediately to the police station where the applicant was being detained . However , the lawyer was denied access to the applicant for the reason that the applicant was at that time being questioned by the police in connection with the burglary .

On DATE the lawyer visited the applicant in the detention facility of the police station .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer requested ORG to give him access to the materials of the administrative case . It appears that the registry personnel and the judge searched in the archives of the court , but the case file was not found .

On DATE the applicant complained to the prosecutor 's office about his “ administrative detention ” . It appears from his complaint that he was shown a copy of the court 's decision of CARDINAL DATE but did not get access to the materials of the administrative case . He repeated his complaint on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant was released after serving his sentence . He found his car with a broken window ; its audio system had been stolen .

The Government insisted that the applicant had been arrested at TIME near the GPE metro station for public disturbance , and that the police records were accurate . They produced a copy of the record of the arrest , which indicated that the applicant had been arrested at TIME on DATE for “ hooliganism ” . They further produced a copy of a “ record of administrative arrest ” of DATE which indicated that the applicant had been arrested under LAW . That document did not contain any information as to the particular circumstances of the offence : most of the sections of the record of the arrest had been left blank . They further produced a copy of a “ description of administrative offence ” of the same date , which indicated that the applicant had been arrested for using obscene language in a public place and for ignoring police orders . Both documents had been signed by the applicant .

They further claimed that after the hearing of DATE the applicant had refused to sign a copy of the court decision : a note stating this had been made by the judge on the court 's ruling . However , the applicant had signed the first page of the decision after the mention “ [ I ] has been informed about [ my ] rights and obligations under LAW ” . They produced a copy of the decision of DATE .

The relevant part of the reasoning of the decision reads as follows :

The decision contained , inter alia , a typewritten entry which indicated that the decision indicated that it was not subject to any appeal .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer drafted an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He indicated , inter alia , that he had not received access to the case file or even a copy of the decision .

It follows from the following correspondence and the postal receipt produced by the applicant that the appeal was sent by registered mail on DATE . On DATE the appeal reached ORG , which was supposed to send it on to ORG together with the case file .

However , on DATE ORG returned the appeal to the applicant 's lawyer . In the cover letter the judge noted that the appeal had arrived at FAC outside the time - limit established by law , and thus would not be forwarded to ORG . The letter was sent to the address of the bar association to which the applicant 's lawyer belonged . The applicant claims that his lawyer has never received this letter . According to the letter from the bar association , they have not received any letters from ORG addressed to the applicant 's lawyer .

On DATE ORG sent the applicant a letter in reply to his complaint of DATE . It can be seen from that letter that the prosecutor 's office requested the materials of the administrative proceedings from ORG . However , the request remained unanswered . Therefore , the prosecutor 's office was unable to review the lawfulness of the detention order of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to restore the time - limit for lodging an appeal . He referred to the fact that , despite his request of DATE , he still did not have access to the materials of the case file and did not have a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

It is unclear what decision was taken in reply to this request . It can be seen from the letter of the Vice - President of ORG of DATE addressed to the applicant that the appeal submitted by his lawyer and dated DATE has been left unexamined since “ by its form and content it did not comply with the requirements for appeals against the court decisions in the administrative cases ” . The case file with the applicant 's request was returned to ORG .

On DATE an inquiry into the applicant 's arrest and detention was initiated . The investigator questioned the applicant and the policemen who took part in his arrest on DATE . The policemen confirmed that they had arrested the applicant for use of obscene language in a public place . The investigator concluded that the applicant 's allegations concerning the circumstances of his arrest were unsubstantiated . On DATE the investigation was discontinued .

On DATE the Vice - President of ORG informed ORG that ORG had never received any appeal from the applicant or his lawyer against the decision of DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE lodged an extraordinary appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the Vice - President of ORG examined the case by way of supervisory review . The Vice - President noted that ORG had based its conclusions solely on the statements of the police officers , without referring to other possible witnesses to the incident . Officer PERSON was not a witness to the offence attributed to the applicant . Further , the court did not refer to any concrete information on the applicant '

LAW ( the Code ) of DATE ( PERSON об административных правонарушениях РСФСР ) , as in force at the relevant time ( until DATE ) , established the penalties for petty offences and the procedure for imposing the penalties . Pursuant to LAW , disturbance of public order ( which included use of offensive language in public ) was punishable with administrative detention DATE , to be ordered by a district court judge .

Under LAW of the LAW when the police arrest a person for the disturbance of public order , that person may be detained until the moment of examination of his administrative case by the court .

Article CARDINAL of the Code ( as amended in DATE and DATE ) provided that a court decision concerning an administrative offence could be appealed against to a higher court . Under Article CARDINAL an appeal could be lodged within DATE from the delivery of the decision . The time - limit for appeal , if it was not met , could be restored by the competent court upon an application by the appellant .

LAW of GPE provides as follows :

Article CARDINAL : Responsibility for damage caused by unlawful acts of ORG investigative authorities , prosecuting authorities and courts

“ CARDINAL . Damage caused to a citizen as a result of unlawful conviction , unlawful criminal prosecution , ... unlawful administrative detention ... shall be compensated at the expense of the ORG of GPE , and in the instances provided for by law , at the expense of the ORG of the subject of GPE ... in full , irrespective of the fault of the officials of the agencies ... ”

The Civil Code provides that the damage caused by an unlawful criminal prosecution should be compensated irrespective of the fault of the tortfeasor ( that is , the ORG agency which decided to prosecute , detain and so on ) . However , the notions of “ unlawful ” prosecution or detention ( see LAW ) are not developed in the relevant provisions of LAW . Certain guidelines on this subject may be obtained from Decree No . CARDINAL-X of ORG of DATE , which concerns compensation for damage caused by unlawful acts by law - enforcement agencies . For example , point CARDINAL of that Decree provides that an acquitted person has the right to obtain damages from the ORG ; the only exception concerns cases when the person was charged after making a false confession . Furthermore , in the case of PERSON ( published in the Bulletin of ORG , DATE г. , ORG , page CARDINAL ) , ORG of GPE used the following wording : “ ... unlawful attribution of criminal liability , namely when an acquittal judgment was given ... ” . These words , as well as the subsequent judicial practice suggest that the domestic courts regard criminal proceedings which ended with an acquittal to be “ unlawful ” as such . Therefore , if there was an acquittal , remand in custody would be “ unlawful ” even if all the substantive and procedural rules were complied with when it had been imposed .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in the village of GPE , GPE . On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) convicted the applicant of aggravated disruption of order in a detention facility and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . According to the last available information from the applicant he continued to serve his prison sentence in a correctional colony in the village of GPE , GPE .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in GPE remand prison PERSON awaiting transportation to GPE , where he was to attend the hearing of his criminal case in the court of appeal . According to the applicant , the conditions of detention there were appalling , as the cells were overcrowded and dirty and without a minimum of comfort . After DATE the applicant was transported to an investigation facility in GPE , and thereafter to investigation facility IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . He alleges that the conditions of detention in both facilities were similar to those in remand prison GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a tort action against the administration of remand prison PERSON . The applicant claimed MONEY ( RUB ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by the conditions of his detention in the facility from DATE to DATE . At some point the applicant also asked the court to summon as witnesses the inmates who had been detained with him in the cell . He also sought leave to appear before the court in person .

According to the ORG , on DATE the ORG informed the applicant about his right to appoint a representative for the proceedings . The court explained that given the applicant ’s status as a convict the court had no power to order his dispatch to the hearing . The applicant in reply notified the court that he could not afford to be represented .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the applicant ’s absence . The case was adjourned ; the applicant was informed again that it would not be possible for him to attend in person and that he could appoint a representative .

On DATE , ORG held a hearing in the applicant ’s absence and dismissed his claim . The representatives of the defendants were present and heard . The witnesses were not summoned . The court found that the applicant had failed to provide evidence to prove that his rights had been violated in PERSON or that the authorities had been responsible for any “ mental anguish or other damage ” allegedly caused to him . The court held , inter alia , that it was not the fault of the authorities that the cells in the facility had been overcrowded .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to give him access to the case file . He did not receive a reply to his request .

On DATE ORG , acting on an appeal , upheld the judgment of DATE . The applicant was not present .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the penal establishment OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the colony ” ) in the village of GPE , GPE , LOC . Upon his arrival , the colony administration seized for inspection the applicant ’s personal documents , letters and photographs . The applicant alleged that the administration had then lost them . Administrative complaints of negligence on the part of the administration were to no avail .

On DATE ( or , according to the Government , DATE ) the applicant brought an action for damages against the colony administration and ORG in connection with the loss of his personal archive . The applicant claimed RUB CARDINAL in compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG , GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) set a date for the hearing and ordered the defendants to produce written observations in reply to the applicant ’s statement of claim , requested the applicant ’s personal file from the colony , and summoned a witness , a colony officer .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the court notified the applicant of the date of the forthcoming hearing and asked him whether he agreed that the case could be heard in his absence . ORG explained to the applicant that there was no possibility in law for a detainee to be transported to court other than in exceptional circumstances . The applicant replied , insisting on attending the proceedings in person .

The first hearing was held in the applicant ’s absence on DATE . A representative of the colony was present . The court ordered the hearing to be adjourned until DATE . On DATE ( according to the Government on DATE ) the court sent a letter to the applicant explaining to him that the law , in particular LAW , did not permit convicts to attend civil proceedings in person , and advising him to instruct a representative to attend the hearing on his behalf .

The applicant replied that he did not have a representative and that he insisted on attending in person .

The second hearing was held on DATE , again in the absence of the applicant and in the presence of the representatives of the defendants . After hearing the GPE representatives , examining documents and hearing oral testimony from the only witness present ( a staff member of the colony ) ORG found against the applicant . The court concluded that the applicant had received his documents back and had burned them afterwards . The judgment also referred to a statement signed by the applicant that he had received his possessions .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment . He alleged that the court had wrongfully interpreted the facts of the case because of his absence from the hearings . He also requested leave to appear before the appeal court .

Following QUANTITY hearings , on DATE and DATE , held in the applicant ’s absence , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . The court held that there was no possibility in law for the applicant to be transported to the hearing , and that the judgment at issue was lawful .

At the material time the applicant was serving a prison sentence in correctional colony OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In DATE a group of officers of a special - purpose unit of ORG ( ORG ) arrived at the colony for the purpose of performing “ regime [ enforcement ] operations ” . Searches of DATE of the colony conducted by the officers of the unit revealed the presence of “ prohibited items ” there .

On DATE several ORG officers entered the cell where the applicant was detained and ordered him to leave the cell . He was told that he had to move to another building of the colony . The applicant and his inmates were taken to the entrance door , where they saw CARDINAL rows of officers wearing balaclava masks . The applicant was told to run between the rows to a car . While the applicant was running , he received several blows with rubber truncheons . The officers also kicked him and set a dog on him .

The ride to the other building took TIME . When getting out of the car the applicant fell to his knees . On his way back from the car to the colony the applicant and other inmates again passed through the rows of masked officers . The applicant was hit several times with rubber truncheons and kicked .

The applicant submitted that inmates PERSON , Mr PERSON . , Mr T. , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON had been subjected to the same treatment on the way to and from the car . A detailed description of the same events by PERSON can be found in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL et seq . , CARDINAL DATE ) .

The applicant , with several other inmates ( Mr PERSON , Mr T. and Mr M. ) , was chased to CARDINAL of the colony courtyards . They were lined up with their hands against the wall and their legs apart . Then several guards in balaclava masks approached the inmates and started beating them . An officer kicked the applicant and hit his legs with rubber truncheons . The applicant was also hit several times on the backs of his knees . The officers said that if the inmates did not stop writing complaints and behaving badly , the next time they would be beaten more severely .

Thereafter the applicant and other inmates were ordered to run “ through the corridor ” to their cell . While the applicant was running , he was hit several times on the back and humiliated verbally . According to the applicant , in that incident he received CARDINAL blows .

During DATE the applicant repeatedly requested to see a doctor . On DATE PERSON , the colony doctor , visited him . The applicant told him about the beatings on DATE . He also showed the doctor his right knee , which was swollen and bruised . The doctor wrote in the applicant ’s medical record that the applicant had fallen out of a car .

The Government denied that physical force had been used on the applicant , with reference to the findings of the domestic inquiry ( see below ) .

Shortly after the incident the applicant sent a number of complaints of ill - treatment to various ORG officials , including ORG of LOC .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ORG of LOC rejected the applicant ’s complaints about the events of DATE as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG seeking for criminal proceedings to be instituted on account of the incident of DATE . According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a similar complaint with the office of the prosecutor in charge of the supervision of penal institutions .

On DATE PERSON , the prosecutor , took a decision not to institute criminal proceedings . The applicant received a copy of that decision on DATE . The prosecutor concluded that the applicant had not been subjected to violence . That conclusion was based on written submissions from officials of the colony and officers of the ORG , who denied that there had been any beatings or that physical force or “ special - purpose hardware ” ( a term designating items including rubber truncheons , handcuffs , and pepper gas ) had been used , and a report by the colony doctor , who testified that the applicant had not requested medical aid on DATE . It also referred to the preliminary inquiry carried out at the request of other inmates ( Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . ) .

The applicant lodged several more complaints with ORG , but to no avail .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint challenging the decision of CARDINAL DATE not to institute criminal proceedings . He submitted that the investigation had been incomplete and requested the court to ensure his presence at the hearings . He also asked for free legal assistance and for the opportunity to meet his lawyer before the hearing .

On DATE the first - instance court rejected the applicant ’s complaint as unfounded . The hearing was attended by the prosecutor , PERSON , and by counsel , PERSON , who was apparently acting on behalf of the applicant and had been appointed by the authorities . On DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal . The applicant was notified of that decision in writing on DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL inmates of the colony went on hunger strike . CARDINAL inmates performed acts of self - mutilation . DATE a group of officers of a special - purpose unit of ORG arrived at the colony to give assistance in “ performing searches in DATE of the colony ” as the hunger strike and self - mutilations continued . The applicant joined the collective hunger strike in protest against various alleged violations of his rights .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant heard noises in the corridor as if the guards were opening the adjacent cells and sending the inmates out . He then heard blows and groans interspersed by the question : “ Why do you refuse to eat ? ” This continued for TIME .

At TIME the guardians opened the applicant ’s cell and ordered him and the other inmates to step out into the corridor . Then men in black balaclava masks immobilised the applicant , face to the wall , the hands against the wall and legs apart . CARDINAL of them then started beating him with their fists , feet and truncheons . Between the blows they asked the applicant why he was refusing to eat . When the applicant turned his head towards the person who had asked him questions , he received a blow and was ordered to look only at the wall . The beating continued until the applicant fell down . He was then forced to stand up and the blows went on until the applicant collapsed again . This was repeated several times .

One of the men then told the applicant that he and all the others who had gone on hunger strike had provoked the administration to undertake this operation and that the prison authority would “ break the applicant down ” and force him to eat just like it had done to others . The next time , the man continued , they would kill him and disguise his murder as suicide . Thereafter the applicant was told to go back to his cell and to accept food from then on .

When the applicant got up and went towards the cell , CARDINAL of the prison officials approached him with the question : “ Whom did you try to sue in court ? ” The applicant replied that he had sued the prison administration . The beating then resumed . The applicant fell down and CARDINAL of the masked men started jumping on the applicant ’s stomach . Some time later the applicant was thrown back into the cell .

The applicant submitted that all his cellmates , in particular Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON . , PERSON , Mr GPE . and PERSON , had been subjected to the same treatment . Mr PERSON ’s description of the events of DATE , as well as the ORG ’s account thereof , can be found in the case of PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL et seq .

The applicant also stated that he had scratches and bruises all over his body . He alleged that in that incident he had received CARDINAL blows .

Shortly after the incident the applicant received aid from a medical assistant . The latter however refused to document the bruises and other injuries on the applicant and his cellmates .

The Government denied that physical force had been used in respect of the applicant , with reference to the findings of the domestic inquiry ( see below ) .

In DATE the applicant sent a number of complaints of ill - treatment to various ORG officials , including ORG .

In DATE the applicant was informed that one of his complaints had been forwarded to PERSON , the prosecutor .

On an unspecified date the applicant was notified that his complaint had been rejected . In the reply of DATE , simultaneously addressed to the applicant and to a number of other detainees who had made similar claims , PERSON stated that an inquiry had been conducted with regard to their allegations and that these allegations had proved to be unsubstantiated . The letter admitted , however , that on DATE a special forces unit of ORG had taken part in searches of the cells in the prison where the applicant was an inmate .

DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG seeking the institution of criminal proceedings in respect of the incident of DATE . The applicant contended in particular that the inquiry by the prosecutor PERSON had been ineffective . He described the events of DATE once again and referred to his cellmates as possible witnesses . On DATE the applicant requested the investigating authorities to question additional witnesses .

In response the applicant was informed that on CARDINAL and DATE his requests had been forwarded to the prosecutor Mr PERSON

On DATE Mr M. , an investigator from the prosecutor ’s office supervising the penal institutions of LOC , decided not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s complaint . The applicant received a copy of that decision on DATE . The decision stated , inter alia :

“ [ A ] preliminary examination of the case has nevertheless revealed that the convicts referred to by [ the applicant ] are giving completely contradictory evidence . Thus , the convict PERSON asserted that at TIME on DATE he had seen in the corridor ... an officer of the ORG [ special forces of ORG ] who was giving [ the applicant ] a kick ( Mr A. did not remember with which foot ) on the right leg . [ The applicant ] then collapsed . The officer went on beating [ the applicant ] , delivering CARDINAL blows to his body . Then another agent of GPE came along and started bouncing on the prone body of [ the applicant ] . Then they lifted [ the applicant ] and dragged him into the cell .

The convict Mr. PERSON gave the evidence that on DATE the events had taken place at TIME He saw [ the applicant ] being continuously beaten by CARDINAL agents of the GPE and other officers passing by . [ The applicant ] collapsed under the blows , stood up , and the kicking and beating with fists and rubber truncheons went on . They gave him CARDINAL blows with fists to the back , against the liver and the sides of the trunk , and CARDINAL blows with the rubber truncheons to the back and legs . The applicant ] then collapsed and they started bouncing on him .

The convict PERSON gave the evidence that the events had taken place on DATE at TIME . He saw different GPE officers ( the convict was unable to specify how many there were ) hitting and kicking [ the applicant ] , delivering CARDINAL blows .

The convict PERSON gave evidence that at TIME on DATE he had been in his cell and had heard groans and the sound of blows coming from the corridor ... Mr PERSON stated that he had heard from his cell [ the applicant ] being badly beaten , and also stated that the guards had forced him to withdraw his complaints and other court actions against [ the administration of the penal establishment IK-CARDINAL ] . The beating lasted for twenty minutes . ”

The decision continued :

“ ... given the inconsistencies in the submissions of the convicts , the possibility that they have conspired to give evidence discrediting ORG officers can not be ruled out . At the same time , ORG refers very negatively to [ the applicant ] , as being persistently disruptive of prison regulations . He is also hostile towards other ORG taking part in extracurricular activities , and sticks to ORG rules and traditions . DATE and DATE [ the applicant ] was subjected to various disciplinary penalties CARDINAL times . ”

The investigator concluded that there was no need to open a criminal investigation . The applicant ’s request for criminal proceedings to be instituted was thus rejected .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG challenging the decision of DATE . He submitted that the investigation had been incomplete and requested the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him and to secure the attendance of witnesses at the court hearings .

By a letter of DATE the court informed the applicant that the hearing in his case would take place on DATE . The court refused to summon witnesses and or to allow the applicant to attend the hearing personally , but agreed to appoint a lawyer for the applicant .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the court in which he insisted on attending in person .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s request to attend in person and agreed to set up a meeting with a lawyer for the applicant .

On an unspecified date the court adjourned the hearing of DATE until DATE . The applicant submits that he has never had a meeting with a lawyer .

On DATE the first - instance court rejected the applicant ’s complaint as unfounded . The hearing was attended by the prosecutor , PERSON PERSON , and an appointed counsel who was apparently acting on behalf of the applicant . On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was upheld on appeal . The applicant was notified of this decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action for damages against colony OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . He complained about the beatings on DATE . In DATE the applicant submitted several procedural requests . He sought to appear in person at court , for witnesses to be summoned on his behalf , and for certain documents to be obtained from the prosecutor ’s office . The applicant also made an unsuccessful attempt to seek the withdrawal of the judge in his case .

On DATE the ORG , LOC , dismissed his tort claim . The court heard the applicant , his cellmates and prison guards , and based its judgment on the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE not to institute criminal proceedings and the NORP judgments of CARDINAL March and DATE upholding that decision .

The applicant appealed and requested to attend the appeal hearings in person . On DATE ORG , in the applicant ’s absence , upheld the judgment of DATE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the ORG that on DATE the administration of the colony had refused to send the applicant ’s letter to ORG at the colony ’s expense .

He also contended that some of his correspondence was not being sent out at all , whereas other letters had been sent out with substantial delays . The applicant did not refer to any particular letters .

For relevant domestic law and practice see PERSON , cited above , § § DATE et seq .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

DATE the applicant and her family lived and worked in LOC in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was taken to a hospital in the town of GPE . According to the applicant , local doctors failed to diagnose her correctly and provide adequate treatment ; as a result her health was seriously damaged .

In DATE the applicant brought a medical malpractice suit against the municipal health protection institution “ FAC ” ( муниципальное учреждение здравоохранения « NORP центральная районная больница ORG ) .

On DATE ORG of the Chukotka Region allowed the applicant 's action and awarded her RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The judgment was not appealed against and on DATE it became final and enforceable .

After the hospital had failed to pay the judgment debt for DATE the applicant sent complaints to the President of GPE , the Minister of Health , ORG and other authorities .

On DATE the Chukotka Regional Department of ORG ( in charge of the court bailiffs ) advised the applicant as follows :

“ ... it was established that the debtor had no cash funds in its accounts . According to its founding documents , the debtor is an institution and , pursuant to LAW , an institution is only liable to the extent of its cash funds . LAW provides that an institution may not alienate or otherwise dispose of the property attached to it or of the property acquired at the expense [ of its owner ] .

In accordance with Information Letter no . CARDINAL of the Presidium of ORG of GPE of DATE On the recovery out of the property of an institution ' , if the debtor , who is an institution , lacks cash funds , then recovery is not possible out of the other property assigned to the institution by its owner ... ”

ORG further informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been closed on DATE because the enforcement had been impossible , but it was open for the applicant to initiate the enforcement proceedings again .

On DATE the Chukotka ORG of ORG forwarded the applicant 's complaint to the chief court bailiff of LOC , for enforcement .

On DATE the Chukotka ORG of ORG responded to the applicant and gave the same explanation as in the letter of DATE . It also added that in respect of the hospital there were several other enforcement proceedings having the first and second rank , whilst the applicant 's claim only had the fifth rank .

On DATE a court bailiff confirmed again that the hospital had no cash funds and that the recovery could not be made out of its property .

On DATE the bailiff required the FAC clearing centre to seize the cash funds of the hospital .

On DATE the bailiff determined that the enforcement was not possible due to the debtor 's lack of funds . The enforcement proceedings were definitively closed and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant .


Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Mrs ORG , her neighbour , seeking damages for the latter 's having hit her on the head with a stick and caused her light bodily injuries .

At the hearing the court examined the parties and CARDINAL witnesses .

The applicant argued that the defendant had started hitting her in response to a reprimand for allowing her turkeys to graze in the applicant 's garden . The defendant acknowledged having had an argument with the applicant , but denied hitting her . She submitted that , on the contrary , the applicant had hit and scratched her , and had torn her jacket .

CARDINAL witness , PERSON ORG , claimed to have seen the defendant hitting the applicant on the head . Another witness , PERSON , claimed that it had been the applicant who had hit the defendant with a shovel , and that the defendant had not harmed her . Mr GPE , the applicant 's husband , was unable to explain who started the fight ; however , he claimed to have seen the defendant hit his wife . Finally , PERSON ORG , the defendant 's husband , submitted that he had learned about the fight from his wife .

On DATE ORG ( GPE суд Братського району PERSON області ) partly allowed the applicant 's claim for damages . PERSON ORG appealed before ORG ( PERSON суд PERSON області ) .

According to the Government , ORG duly notified the applicant that the hearing in her case was scheduled for DATE . In support of this argument the Government presented a copy of page CARDINAL of the case - file , containing an acknowledgement slip for a summons addressed by ORG to the applicant 's home address , which included the following text : “ the summons [ was ] received [ on ] DATE ; delivered for handing over to ORG ” . The date and the applicant 's last name are handwritten , while the remainder of the text is preprinted . According to the postmarks on the document , it was despatched from PERSON on DATE and sent back from ORG on CARDINAL DATE .

According to the applicant , she never received the above notification and therefore failed to appear at the hearing .

On DATE ORG decided to hold the hearing in the applicant 's absence , noting that she had been duly notified of its date and time . It heard the defendant , who repeated the version of events submitted to the first - instance court . No questions were asked of her . Lastly , the court examined documentary evidence submitted to the first - instance court . According to TIME of the hearing , contained on pages CARDINAL of the case - file , it started at ORG and finished at CARDINAL with the delivery of a new judgment , by which the applicant 's claims were dismissed .

ORG found that ORG had erred in assessing the evidence . In particular , the submissions of ORG , the only witness in the applicant 's favour , were inconsistent , as she had testified that the incident had happened on a different date . The statements by the other witnesses were insufficient to prove that the defendant had assaulted the applicant rather than defended herself .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation . Her only complaint was that she had been unlawfully deprived of an opportunity to attend the hearing on appeal , as the case - file materials contained no proof that the summons had been served on her .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant 's request for leave to appeal in cassation .


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

The applicants are Mr PERSON Aloyan , who is a NORP national born in DATE , and PERSON , who is an NORP national born in DATE . The applicants live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG were represented by PERSON , a former Representative of GPE at ORG .

On DATE the applicants’ son , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , left his apartment in GPE , drove away and was not seen again .

On DATE officers from GPE no . CARDINAL police station found the applicant ’s son ’s car in a car park in GPE . According to the Government , the officers then unlawfully used the car from that date until DATE , when PERSON relatives found and identified the car as belonging to him .

On DATE the burned remains of a man with a gunshot entry wound to the back of the head were found in GPE in the GPE region .

On DATE a medical forensic examination was carried out on the remains in the context of criminal proceedings opened on DATE ( see below ) . The experts stated that the death could have been caused by a gunshot wound to the head . Also , a ring made from yellow metal with a white metal setting with CARDINAL rows of white precious stones was found on the little finger of the right hand of the body . A fragment of a black shoe with a leather sole was found on the left foot , a fragment of cotton fabric of a yellow - brown colour , a fragment from a grey sweater and a crucifix made of white metal were found on the neck and chest of the body .

During a witness interview of DATE , CARDINAL of PERSON brothers , PERSON , stated that his missing brother had been wearing a gold ring with white diamonds on the little finger of his right hand . DATE he identified the ring and the fragments of clothes and shoe which had been on the dead body found on CARDINAL DATE as belonging to his brother , PERSON . The body was then handed over to the applicants , who buried it in GPE .

On DATE CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings were instituted , in connection respectively with the disappearance of the applicants’ son and the discovery of the dead body in GPE . The cases were later joined under the number CARDINAL ; the investigation was carried out under LAW ( premeditated murder ) of FAC then in force .

It appears that the applicants retained doubts as to the identity of the body found in GPE on CARDINAL DATE . In DATE they met a certain Mr S. , who , according to him , had been held in division no . CARDINAL of psychiatric hospital no . CARDINAL in the town of PERSON in LOC ( “ the PERSON psychiatric hospital ” ) and had seen the applicants’ son there in DATE . The applicants insisted that PERSON could have been abducted by officers of police station no . CARDINAL of GPE , or by officers of the GPE Region department of the fight against organised crime , who had carried out a special operation in FAC casino in GPE on DATE . In this latter respect , the applicant alleged that on the date of his disappearance their son had telephoned them on his mobile phone and stated that he was in that casino . The applicants also insisted that officers of the NORP town prosecutor ’s office , acting with medical experts , showed them their son ’s personal belongings for identification – a ring and a crucifix – and then delivered to them another man ’s body which had been burned to an extent which made identification impossible . The applicants further claimed that after he was abducted their son had been placed in the PERSON psychiatric hospital .

According to the Government , the investigating authorities thoroughly checked all aspects of the version put forward by the applicants and did not find any evidence to support it . The applicants on their part had been highly uncooperative and had obstructed the course of the investigation by numerous refusals to take part in investigative actions . In support of their submissions , the Government referred to the documents from the criminal investigation file in case no . DATE . These documents reveal the following .

On DATE the body found in LOC on DATE was examined by medical experts ( see above ) .

On DATE Mr PERSON identified the remains as those of his brother , PERSON ( see above ) .

According to an expert report of DATE , pieces of fabric collected during the inspection of the scene where the corpse was found , represented a piece of a sweater of a blue - grey colour and a piece of cotton denim fabric .

During their interviews , witnesses who had seen PERSON on DATE of his disappearance stated that he had been wearing a blue - grey sweater and jeans .

In a witness interview of DATE , Mr PERSON , CARDINAL of ORG brothers , stated that he had no doubts that the body found on CARDINAL DATE in LOC was that of PERSON . He added that he had been in conflict with his parents , the applicants , after PERSON death , because they insisted that the latter was alive . Mr PERSON also stated that he could not explain why his parents believed his deceased brother was alive .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE a medical forensic molecular - genetic ( DNA ) examination of the remains found in GPE was carried out on the basis of blood samples provided by PERSON , CARDINAL of ORG brothers . It was thus confirmed that the remains were those of PERSON .

In a witness interview of DATE Mr S. , born in DATE , stated that DATE and DATE he had undergone treatment in the PERSON psychiatric hospital . According to him , from DATE of his admission to hospital until DATE he had been held in division no . CARDINAL of that hospital , and afterwards he had been transferred to another division . Mr S. further stated that in DATE his wife , who had come to see him in hospital , had shown him a newspaper article with PERSON photograph stating that his parents were looking for him and that he had been abducted by the police and placed in the PERSON psychiatric hospital . In Mr S. ’s submission , having looked at the photograph , he had recognised PERSON , as he had seen the latter in division no . CARDINAL during DATE Mr S. said he had spent there .

According to a report of DATE on PERSON psychiatric forensic examination , at the relevant time the latter had been suffering from a mental disorder of a kind which made him mentally incompetent and incapable of adequately perceiving and understanding reality . Moreover , PERSON mental state at present made it impossible for him to participate in the investigation . The investigation also established that PERSON had spent DATE in division no . CARDINAL of the PERSON psychiatric hospital rather than DATE as had been alleged by him . Moreover , only elderly patients were admitted to that division , therefore under no circumstances could a person of PERSON age be held there .

The materials of the criminal investigation file further reveal that enquiries had been made of the PERSON psychiatric hospital by various authorities , including ORG , and that medical personnel were questioned in the course of the investigation ; however , no evidence that PERSON had ever been in that hospital was ever obtained .

It is clear from the submitted materials that a number of other investigative actions were also taken . In particular , a number of expert examinations of various kinds were conducted , with a view to establishing the time and cause of PERSON death , and numerous witnesses were interviewed . Some witnesses indicated by the applicants as those who had certain information concerning their son had been questioned on several occasions , and confrontations between them and the applicants were held . All the witnesses were consistent in their statements and denied having any meaningful information concerning PERSON , or having given the applicants any information concerning his fate , as the latter alleged .

In particular , as regards the applicants’ version of events , that their son had been abducted by police during a special operation in FAC casino on CARDINAL DATE , several witnesses who had been in the casino on DATE , including CARDINAL of ORG brothers , denied having seen PERSON there at any time on the date in question . Also , a number of witnesses were interviewed in connection with the applicants’ version that their son had been abducted by officers from police station no . CARDINAL who had then used his car . It was established that the officers in question had found PERSON car abandoned in a car park and used it , in breach of their duties , instead of reporting the finding of an unidentified car to their superiors ; however , no evidence of their involvement in ORG abduction and/or murder had ever been found .

The materials of the investigation file in case no . DATE also contain numerous reports by the investigators in charge of the case at various times , indicating that throughout the investigation the applicants had repeatedly refused to take part in it , and in particular to participate in witness interviews and confrontations , to submit the remains found on CARDINAL DATE and the items found along with the remains for additional expert examinations , to provide blood samples for DNA analysis of the remains , and so on .

A decision of DATE , by which the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE were terminated on the latest occasion for failure to establish the identities of those responsible , stated , inter alia , that in their complaints against the investigating authorities the applicants had mainly alleged that those authorities were biased and had not been diligent in carrying out the investigation . According to the decision , the applicants had proposed various versions as regards the involvement of various people in abducting their son and putting him in the PERSON psychiatric hospital , and had insisted that those people had information concerning their son ’s whereabouts . The decision went on to say that , once all those versions had been thoroughly checked , by , inter alia , confrontations between the applicants and the individuals to whom they had referred , and had been rejected , the applicants would accuse the investigating authorities of incompetence and bias and would advance other versions , which , in their turn , would prove to be unfounded . The decision also stated that in the course of the investigation the authorities had investigated versions according to which PERSON might have been killed as a member of a criminal group in a territorial struggle with other criminal groups .

On DATE the first applicant lodged with ORG , GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) a complaint against the head of the PERSON psychiatric hospital . The first applicant alleged that he had information that his son , PERSON , was being unlawfully kept in that hospital . He further complained that the hospital authorities had consistently refused to provide him with information concerning his son ’s state of health and location , and requested the court to order that he be provided with the information .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s complaint with reference to the absence of any evidence that PERSON had ever been held in the PERSON psychiatric hospital . It had rejected as unreliable the testimony given by PERSON , who had been summoned and examined by the court at the first applicant ’s request , to the effect that he had seen PERSON in the PERSON psychiatric hospital . The court referred to the results of the enquiries made of the hospital by various authorities , and to the list of patients admitted to the hospital in DATE which did not include PERSON name . It appears that during the proceedings the first applicant requested ORG to call and examine some other witnesses on his behalf , however failed to indicate their full names and addresses , as was required by domestic law then in force .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses - financial award

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

On DATE the applicant suffered an industrial injury and lost PERCENT of his capacity to work .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG ( the “ Mine ” ) to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation for the applicant 's occupational disability . By the same decision , the court ordered ORG of ORG to pay the applicant a lump sum of ORG ORG and a DATE allowance of ORG CARDINAL for a period of DATE in compensation for loss of earnings .

On DATE ORG instituted enforcement proceedings against the Mine .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the Mine and its lack of funds . The Bailiffs also informed her that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the PERSON on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of DATE .

In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG about the inactivity of the Head of ORG in respect of the enforcement of the judgment at issue . On DATE the court found for the applicant , declared ORG inactivity unlawful and ordered its Head to carry out supervision of the enforcement of the judgment by ORG .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant was paid a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in the course of the enforcement of the award against the Mine .

On DATE the sum of UAH PERSON was transferred to the applicant 's bank account , out of which the applicant 's bank deducted a fee of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

NORP On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant received ORG CARDINAL , UAH CARDINAL and UAH CARDINAL , respectively .

On DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of ORG of DATE in the part concerning the award against the Mine had been enforced in full .

The applicant did not challenge the decision of ORG of DATE before the domestic courts .

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