Datasets:

Eugleo

/

echr-outcomes

like 0

7. The first applicant is the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow (“the applicant community”) established in 1992. The other applicants are members of that community. All of them live in Moscow. 8. The second applicant, Mr Ivan Stepanovich Chaykovskiy, was born in 1955. He has been with the Jehovah's Witnesses since 1977 and is a community elder. 9. The third applicant, Mr Igor Vasilievich Denisov, was born in 1961. He has been a member of the applicant community since 1993. 10. The fourth applicant, Mr Stepan Vasilievich Levitskiy, was born in 1925. He was twice convicted in Soviet times – in 1957 and 1980 – for disseminating Jehovah's Witnesses' religious literature and officially rehabilitated in 1992 as a victim of religious persecution. 11. The fifth applicant, Mr Oleg Nikolaevich Marchenko, was born in 1965. He is a third-generation Jehovah's Witness whose grandparents were exiled to Siberia in 1951 under an order deporting Jehovah's Witnesses. 12. Jehovah's Witnesses have been present in Russia since 1891. They were banned soon after the Russian Revolution in 1917 and persecuted in the Soviet Union. 13. After the USSR Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations was enacted in 1990, on 27 March 1991 the RSFSR Ministry of Justice registered the charter of the Administrative Centre of The Religious Organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses in the USSR. 14. On 11 December 1992 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation registered the charter of the Administrative Centre of the Regional Religious Organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses. 15. The applicant community, which is the Moscow branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses, obtained legal-entity status on 30 December 1993 from the Moscow City Justice Department. According to its charter, the purpose of the applicant community was “joint profession and dissemination of [their] faith and carrying on religious activity to proclaim the name of God the Jehovah”. 16. In 1995 the Committee for the Salvation of Youth from Totalitarian Cults (“the Salvation Committee”), a non-governmental organisation aligned with the Russian Orthodox Church, filed a complaint against the members of the applicant community's management with the Savyolovskiy district prosecutor's office in Moscow. It alleged in particular that Jehovah's Witnesses burdened their followers with exorbitant membership dues that put their families in a financially precarious situation and that they incited hatred toward “traditional” religions. 17. On 11 August 1995 the prosecutor's office refused to institute a criminal investigation, finding no breaches of the community's registered charter, the Constitution or other laws. It was also noted that no complaints from private persons or legal entities concerning the activity of the applicant community had been filed. 18. In 1996 the Salvation Committee complained again and the inquiry into the same allegations was reopened. On 21 April 1997 the prosecutor of the Northern District of Moscow discontinued the investigation. Having heard several Jehovah's Witnesses and completed a study of their literature, the prosecutor found that the applicant community did not cause any harm to the health of citizens or their rights and did not incite citizens to refuse to fulfil their civil duties or commit disorderly acts. 19. Following a third complaint by the Salvation Committee, the prosecutor in charge of supervising compliance with laws on inter-ethnic relations in the General Prosecutor's Office ordered the case to be reopened. On 15 September 1997 an investigator with the prosecutor's office of the Northern District of Moscow again discontinued the investigation. She scrutinised in detail the Salvation Committee's allegations concerning the death of a Jehovah's Witness who had refused a blood transfusion and accusations about alienation of family members resulting from their involvement in the religious activity of the applicant community. The investigator established that no harm allegedly caused by the management of the applicant community to other persons could be proven. 20. Following a fourth complaint lodged by the Salvation Committee, the investigation was reopened on 28 November 1997. The complaint was based on the same allegations as the previous ones. On 28 December 1997 the same investigator discontinued the proceedings for the same reasons as those set out in her earlier decision. In particular, she pointed out that “the Committee for the Salvation of Youth's statements are based upon their active hostility towards this particular religious organisation, whose members they [the Committee] deny the mere possibility of exercising their constitutional rights because of their religious beliefs”. 21. The Salvation Committee requested a new investigation for the fifth time. The Moscow City prosecutor's office reopened the case and assigned it to another investigator on 20 March 1998. 22. On 13 April 1998 the new investigator, in charge of particularly important cases in the Northern District of Moscow, terminated the criminal proceedings. Her findings in respect of substantially the same allegations were different, however. She found that Jehovah's Witnesses alienated their followers from their families, intimidated believers and controlled their mind, as well as inciting them to civil disobedience and religious discord. The investigator pointed out that the community acted in breach of Russian and international laws, but that no criminal offence could be established. Accordingly, she discontinued the criminal case but recommended that the prosecutor of the Northern District of Moscow lodge a civil action for the applicant community to be dissolved and its activity banned. 23. On 20 April 1998[1] the prosecutor of the Northern Administrative District of Moscow filed a civil action for the applicant community to be dissolved and its activity banned. The prosecutor's charges against the applicant community were: (i) incitement to religious discord; (ii) coercion into destroying the family; (iii) encouragement of suicide or refusal on religious grounds of medical assistance to persons in life- or health‑threatening conditions; (iv) infringement of rights and freedoms of citizens; and (v) luring teenagers and minors into the religious organisation. 24. On 29 September 1998 hearings before the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow began. The presiding judge admitted several new witnesses for the prosecution and allowed the Salvation Committee to take part in the proceedings as a third party on the ground that it “defends the rights of citizens”, overruling an objection by the defence. 25. On 18 November 1998 the hearing was adjourned to February 1999 because the prosecutor was not ready. 26. On 15 January 1999 the prosecutor filed a supplementary action based on the same allegations and corroborated by references to quotations from the religious literature of Jehovah's Witnesses. 27. On 9 February 1999 the proceedings resumed. The judge reversed her previous decision and, on a request by the defence, removed the Salvation Committee as third party in the case. The court proceeded to hear witnesses and experts. 28. On 12 March 1999 the court stayed the proceedings. The judge found that contradictions between the expert opinions submitted by the parties could not be resolved and ordered a new expert study of the applicant community's religious beliefs. The court appointed five experts – two in religious studies, two in linguistics and one in psychology – and asked them whether the literature or materials of Jehovah's Witnesses contained indications of incitement to religious discord, coercion into destroying the family or infringements of the rights and freedoms of others. The source material for the study included two volumes of evidence in the civil case, literature and documents of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Synodal translation of the Bible. 29. On 4 October 2000 the five-expert composite study was completed. On 9 February 2001 the proceedings resumed and on 23 February 2001[2] the District Court gave judgment. 30. The Golovinskiy District Court heard over forty witnesses and experts and examined religious literature and documents. It scrutinised the experts' report and took their oral testimony. A fifteen-page report by four experts endorsed the prosecutor's allegations, while the fifth expert dissented in a refutation of 139 pages. The court noted that he was the only expert who had ever observed “how Jehovah's Witnesses carry out their preaching work in different countries”, while the four other experts “confirmed that they did not examine anyone belonging to the indicated group [Jehovah's Witnesses or potential members of Jehovah's Witnesses]”. As to the four experts' conclusions, the court also stated: “However, not one of the experts, including ... [the] psychologist, could explain to the court on the basis of what objective information or research they came to this conclusion regarding the influence of the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses on people's perceptions. It is simply the experts' appraisal of this particular religious organisation and is not supported by any actual facts showing incitement to religious discord, infringements of the personality and rights and freedoms of citizens, etc.” 31. The District Court also referred to the conclusions of an expert examination of 15 April 1999 performed by the Expert Council for State Expert Examinations in Religious Studies at the Ministry of Justice. The examination, which was carried out at the request of the Ministry of Justice for the purpose of granting re-registration to the Administrative Centre of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, found, with certain minor reservations concerning blood transfusion, that Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings inflicted no harm on citizens. The District Court also had regard to the fact that in 1998-2000 over 350 religious entities of Jehovah's Witnesses had obtained State registration in other Russian regions. 32. The District Court assessed the allegations advanced by the prosecutor and found that none of them had been based on any objectively verifiable facts. The court's examination of testimony by the prosecutor's witnesses who spoke in support of the allegation of coercion into destroying the family established that “the testimonies simply show the stand relatives take when a member of their family becomes a Jehovah's Witness and when it is unacceptable from the relatives' standpoint”. 33. The District Court determined that the other allegations were likewise unfounded: “Facts indicating deliberate incitement to religious discord, discrimination, hostility or violence, coercion into destroying the family, infringements of the personality and rights and freedoms of citizens ... were not adduced by the prosecutor or established by the court... ...[T]he court came to the conclusion that there is no basis for the dissolution and banning of the activity of the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow, since it has not been established that this community in Moscow violates the Russian Constitution or Russian laws, incites religious discord, coerces members into destroying the family, infringes the personality or rights or freedoms of citizens, encourages [others] to commit suicide or to refuse medical care for individuals who are in a life- or health-threatening condition for religious reasons.” 34. On an appeal by the prosecutor, on 30 May 2001 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 23 February 2001[3] and remitted the claim for a fresh examination by a different bench. The City Court held that the District Court had not properly assessed the circumstances of the case and that it should have ordered a new expert study in order to elucidate differences between the existing expert opinions. 35. On 1 October 1997 a new Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations (“the Religions Act”) entered into force. It required all religious associations that had previously been granted legal-entity status to bring their articles of association into conformity with the Act and obtain re-registration from the competent Justice Department. 36. On 29 April 1999 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation re-registered the Administrative Centre of the Religious Organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia as a centralised religious organisation. 37. On 20 October 1999 the first application for re-registration of the applicant community was lodged with the Moscow Justice Department. On 17 November 1999 the Moscow Justice Department refused to examine the application on the ground that some documents were missing, without specifying which documents these were. 38. On 7 December 1999 and 29 May 2000 a second and third application for re-registration were filed, both of which were rejected by the Moscow Justice Department on the same ground. 39. On 16 October 2000 the second applicant, Mr Chaykovskiy, sent a written enquiry to the Moscow Justice Department asking which documents were missing. On the same day he brought an action against the Moscow Justice Department before the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, seeking a court order to oblige the Moscow Justice Department to consider the third application. The court set a hearing date for 22 November 2000 and requested the Moscow Justice Department to provide a response by 23 October 2000. 40. On 23 October 2000 the deputy head of the Moscow Justice Department informed the applicant community that it had failed to submit the original charter and registration certificate of 1993. He also informed the applicants that he was under no legal obligation to specify the missing documents. 41. On 25 October 2000 the applicants filed a fourth application, which included the original charter and registration certificate. On 24 November 2000 the Moscow Justice Department issued the first formal refusal of re-registration. It referred to two allegedly incorrect wordings in the submitted documents: the Moscow community had “adopted”, rather than “approved” its charter and the organisation had indicated its “legal address” only, but no “location”. 42. On 12 December 2000 the fifth application was filed, in which the two required wordings were used. This was the last application because on 31 December 2000 the time-limit for submitting applications for re-registration expired. 43. On 12 January 2001 the Moscow Justice Department issued the second formal refusal of re-registration, in respect of the fifth application. It based its decision on the fact that the proceedings to have the applicant community dissolved and its activity banned were pending before the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow. 44. On 11 January 2001 the fifth applicant, Mr Marchenko, as an individual and founding member of the Moscow community, filed a complaint with the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow against the Moscow Justice Department's first refusal of 24 November 2000. The court stayed the proceedings pending a decision of the Presnenskiy District Court. 45. On 11 April 2001 the third applicant, Mr Denisov, filed a complaint with the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow against the Moscow Justice Department's second refusal of 12 January 2001. The court asked for official information from the Golovinskiy District Court about the proceedings to dissolve the applicant community. 46. On 14 September 2001 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the fifth applicant's complaints, finding that the refusal of re-registration restricted only the rights of the Moscow community, and not those of the fifth applicant himself. On 10 December 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 47. On 12 October 2001 the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the third applicant's claim. The court held that, pursuant to section 27 § 3 of the Religions Act, re-registration could not be granted to organisations that might be liquidated or banned pursuant to section 14 of the Religions Act. The court added that the third applicant's religious rights were not restricted by the refusal, which had only entailed legal consequences for the Moscow community as a legal entity. On 20 February 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 48. On 16 August 2002 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow allowed the action in part. The court found that the Moscow Justice Department had wrongly requested the original documents, copies of which had been available on file. It held that the Moscow Justice Department's reference to ongoing proceedings before the Golovinskiy District Court was inadmissible because it had first invoked this argument before the court and had never referred to it as a ground for its earlier refusals. The court declared the Moscow Justice Department's refusals unlawful but did not order re-registration of the applicant community on the ground that new application forms for religious organisations had been introduced and that the applicant community had to submit a fresh application for registration. 49. On an appeal by the applicant community, on 2 December 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 16 August 2002. It decided that the application for registration could not be processed, not only because of the newly introduced application forms, but also with regard to the ongoing proceedings in the Golovinskiy District Court. 50. On 30 October 2001 a new round of proceedings began in the Golovinskiy District Court under a new presiding judge. On 9 November 2001 the hearing was adjourned. 51. Following the adjournment, the community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow collected 10,015 signatures on a petition to protest against the prosecutor's claim that she was protecting the rights of the community members. Copies of the petition were sent to the District Court, the President, and the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. 52. On an unspecified date in 2001 the District Court ordered a new composite psycho-linguistic expert study of the applicant community's literature and teachings. The proceedings were stayed pending its completion. 53. On 22 January 2004 the composite study was completed and its findings made available to the court. 54. Following several oral hearings, on 26 March 2004 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow decided to uphold the prosecution's claim, to dissolve the applicant community and to impose a permanent ban on its activities. 55. The District Court found the applicant community responsible for luring minors into religious associations against their will and without the consent of their parents (section 3 § 5 of the Religions Act) and for coercing persons into destroying the family, infringing the personality, rights and freedoms of citizens; inflicting harm on the health of citizens; encouraging suicide or refusing on religious grounds medical assistance to persons in life- or health-threatening conditions; and inciting citizens to refuse to fulfil their civil duties (section 14 § 2). However, the court found the applicant community not liable for extremist activity in the form of inciting religious discord with calls for violent acts (section 14 § 2). Likewise, it found unproven the allegation that the applicant community had collected contributions from its members for its benefit. 56. Regarding the allegation of “coercion into destroying the family,” the District Court relied on the statements by seven family members of Jehovah's Witnesses – five of which were members of the Salvation Committee – who had been unhappy about their relatives' abidance by the religious norms, their active involvement in the applicant community and their estrangement from non-religious family members. Thus, one husband had blamed the applicant community for the collapse of his family life, claiming that since “his wife [had] joined the Jehovah's Witnesses, she fulfil[led] all their orders, [he] c[ould] not discuss anything with her, or even watch TV with her because of her comments on everybody, including the leadership of the country and the Orthodox Church”. Other witnesses complained that their adult children or, in one case, the daughter-in-law had spent less time caring for elderly relatives because they had been constantly busy within the community. The District Court further relied on the majority opinion of the expert study of 4 October 2000 which determined that “the texts of Jehovah's Witnesses do not contain direct coercion into destroying the family but apply and propose for application direct psychological pressure which risks causing the destruction of families”. Assessing the opinion by the dissenting expert and the findings of the new study of 22 January 2004, which found no coercion into destroying the family, the District Court considered that these experts had limited the scope of their inquiry to publicly available literature of Jehovah's Witnesses and had not analysed the “actual activity of the Moscow community” or implementation of the religious commandments and recommendations “in real life” and their influence on family relations. The District Court rejected statements by the witnesses for the defence who had Jehovah's Witnesses in their families and the conclusions of a sociological study of 995 community members, randomly selected, conducted by the Department of Family Sociology at the Moscow State University on the ground that it had been based on the lists of respondents supplied by the community itself and failed to “report a single instance of an internal family confrontation which objectively existed”. 57. As to the charge of infringement of the personality, rights and freedoms of citizens, the District Court firstly found a violation of the right to privacy in that the applicant community determined the place and nature of work of its members, recommended that they engage in part-time employment so as to have time for preaching, prohibited them from celebrating holidays or birthdays, and required them to preach door to door, thus also invading other people's privacy. As evidence of attempts to interfere with other people's private life, the District Court referred to the criminal conviction of a Mr K. for beating a female community member who had offered religious literature to his wife at their home. Moreover, in the District Court's view, the applicant community violated its members' right to a free choice of occupation as it recommended that they engage in part-time employment and provided applications for voluntary service at Bethel, the community centre near St Petersburg, where they only received a monthly living allowance and no salary. 58. The District Court found a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality between parents in relation to the upbringing and education of children (Article 38 of the Constitution) because some parents involved their children in the religious activity of the applicant community without the permission of the other parent, a non-member of the community. It relied on the fact that there were pending custody disputes between parents in Moscow courts where religious education had been in issue. It noted that where a Witness parent had been represented in the custody dispute by a community-retained lawyer, this amounted to “a manifestation of interest in the outcome of the cases of the community itself and an interference with the family and private affairs of its members”. The District Court also relied on the opinions of three psychiatrist witnesses for the prosecution who stated that “the literal following of the Bible principles, as practised by Jehovah's Witnesses, restricted the person's independent thinking ... and arrested psychological development”. In their view, a child who did not celebrate holidays would become “a social outcast” and the community's teachings “hindered the development of patriotic feelings and love for the Motherland”. 59. The District Court found that the applicant community violated the right to freedom to choose one's religion by resorting to active proselytising and “mind control”. According to the prosecution experts, Jehovah's Witnesses were set apart from traditional religions because of the “theocratic hierarchy of the community”, “their striving to integrate families into the life of a totalitarian non-secular collective” and “military-like discipline in domestic life”. The District Court accepted the opinions of the prosecution experts and rejected the contrary conclusion in the expert study that the defence expert psychiatrist had conducted of 113 community members on the grounds that “participants had been selected from lists supplied by the organisations” and that the study “only concerned the community members whereas their relatives had not been examined”. The District Court also considered that the petitions signed by the community members in its support had been “evidence of the pressure that the community exercised on its members”. 60. Ruling on the charge of “encouragement of suicide or the refusal of medical assistance on religious grounds”, the District Court found that under the influence of the applicant community its members had refused transfusions of blood and/or blood components even in difficult or life‑threatening circumstances. That finding was based on the following evidence: the prohibition on blood transfusion contained in the literature of the applicant community, the “No Blood” card distributed within the community for the benefit of its members, testimonies by community members who confirmed carrying such cards, the existence of the Hospital Liaison Committee with the applicant community, and stories of patients who had refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds and whose refusal had been noted in their medical records. The District Court also had regard to a letter from the Moscow Health Protection Department that listed a number of instances in which patients had refused blood transfusions for themselves and, in one case, in respect of a newborn child. Even though the medical outcome of those cases was not specified, the District Court held that the proven fact of damage to the health of at least one individual was a sufficient ground for terminating the activities of the Moscow community. It further noted the opinions of medical experts who clarified that bloodless surgery was a prospective trend in medicine but that in case of certain diseases the transfusion of blood or its components was still indispensable. Finally, in the District Court's view, the “No Blood” card contravened the patient's right to take medical decisions for himself by delegating that right – in the eventuality of his being unconscious – to his fellow believers. 61. As to harming the health of citizens, the District Court found that, in addition to the prohibition on blood transfusion, the activities of the applicant community had had a “negative influence on the mental state and mental health of the followers”. This assessment rested on opinions of non‑Witness family members who testified that they had seen “sudden and negatives changes of personality” in their relatives who had joined the applicant community and that many participants at religious meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses had “cried” and had complained thereafter “about colossal emotional exhaustion”. 62. As to luring minors into the religious association, the District Court found, on the basis of statements by two non-Witness parents, that where a Witness parent involved the child in the activities of the applicant community, there was an encroachment on the child's freedom of conscience and the joint right of parents to participate in the child's upbringing. 63. Finally, the District Court found that the applicant community's literature incited citizens to “refuse to fulfil their civil duties.” This included refusal to serve in the army and to perform alternative service and promotion of “a disrespectful attitude towards State emblems – the flag and the national anthem”, as well as a prohibition on celebrating State holidays. 64. The District Court held that the interference with the applicant community's rights was justified, prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim because the applicant community had “violated rights and freedoms of citizens, and its activity led to the destruction of families, encroachments on the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens and calls to refuse to perform duties to society... Taking into account that the [applicant] community violated constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, the contemplated restriction on its rights and termination of its activity is justified and proportionate to the constitutionally significant aims”. 65. The applicant community was ordered to bear the costs of the expert studies of 4 October 2000 and 22 January 2004 and to pay costs of 102,000 Russian roubles to the State. 66. The applicant community appealed, claiming, in particular, that the interference with its right to freedom of religion was not justified from the standpoint of Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. It also invoked Articles 6, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention. 67. On 16 June 2004 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicants' appeal in a summary fashion and upheld the judgment of the Golovinskiy District Court, endorsing its reasons. 68. The “No Blood” card referred to in the proceedings is a pre-printed foldable card that bears the words “No Blood” in capital letters on the front page and empty fields to be filled out concerning the person(s) to be contacted in case of emergency and the holder's allergies, diseases and medicine(s). The text inside the card reads as follows: “MEDICAL DIRECTIVE / RELEASE FROM LIABILITY I, [name], have filled out this directive as an official statement of my will. The instructions contained therein reflect my firm and conscious decision. I direct that under no circumstances – even if doctors consider it necessary to save my life or health – shall any blood transfusion be performed on me ... I consent to the use of blood substitutes, hemodiluting solutions... or bloodless methods of treatment. By this legal directive I exercise my right to consent to medical treatment or refuse it in accordance with my principles and convictions. I am a Jehovah's Witness and issue this directive in pursuance of the Biblical precepts... I release doctors, anaesthetists, hospital and medical personnel from liability for any consequences of my refusal of blood provided that I have been given full alternative qualified medical assistance. Should I be unconscious, the person listed on the reverse side of the card [emergency contacts] may represent me before others, acting in accordance with this directive. [Date, signature, address, phone number, and signatures of two witnesses].”

4. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chełm. 5. On 9 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing and uttering threats while acting in an organised criminal gang. On 11 March 2004 the Lublin District Court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. The court held that there was a strong likelihood that the applicant committed the offences with which he was charged. 6. On 1 June 2004 the Chełm District Court extended the applicant’s detention. In addition to the grounds originally given, the court relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant and the probability that he would interfere with the course of the proceedings. On 1 September 2004 the Chełm District Court again extended the applicant’s detention, relying on the complexity of the investigation. 7. Between 3 and 17 February 2005 the applicant served a prison sentence which had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings. 8. On 28 February 2005 a bill of indictment was filed with the Chełm District Court. The applicant was charged with drug dealing and uttering threats while acting in an organised criminal gang. 9. The first hearing was held on 6 June 2005. Subsequent hearings were held at regular intervals of one month. On many occasions the trial court imposed fines on witnesses for failure to appear at hearings. In addition, some of the witnesses were brought to the court under police escort. 10. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions, in particular on 7 March, 7 June, 5 September and 5 December 2005. 11. Between 21 March 2005 and 21 May 2006 the applicant served two different prison sentences which had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings. On 21 May 2006 the applicant began serving a prison sentence of nine years and six months. 12. On 5 June 2006 the Chełm District Court again extended the applicant’s detention. 13. On 24 July 2006 the Chełm District Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed. 14. On 13 February 2007 the Lublin Regional Court gave judgment, partly quashing and remitting the District Court’s judgment (in respect of one of the charges). 15. On 7 May 2007 the Chełm District Court again extended the applicant’s detention. 16. On 7 August 2007 the Chełm District Court gave a decision and discontinued the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 17. According to the information available to the Court at the date of adoption of the present judgment, the criminal proceedings concerning one of the charges against the applicant are still pending before the Chełm District Court. 18. On 25 July 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). 19. It was dismissed by the Lublin Regional Court on 25 July 2007. The court stressed that the proceedings had been very complex, that they had concerned ten co-accused and that evidence had to be obtained from twenty three witnesses.

6. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kleczew. 7. At the material time the applicant was a member of the Kleczew Municipal Council. 8. On 22 March 2000, in the course of a session of the Kleczew Municipal Council, the applicant gave a speech in his capacity as a member of the Council. The purpose of the debate was to take a vote on whether the Municipal Board (Zarząd Gminy) had made appropriate use of the 1999 municipal budget. In this context the applicant made the following statements: “What the members of the Municipal Council received is all lumped together; it is unclear what costs how much ... According to the Municipal Council’s resolution of 22 June 1999, spending on investments was to be increased. The money was to be spent on modernising and renovating the purification plant and building access to it.” 9. The applicant had doubts as to whether that investment had in fact been made. He also referred to another investment project, the sanitary sewage system, saying: “It is unclear how many metres have been built. It is important, because this is public money. Everyone knows how to spend his own money, but where public money is concerned, it is being spent as much as possible.” 10. The applicant further compared the Kleczew municipality with the neighbouring Wilczyn municipality, which had had a small budget but had managed to construct an interceptor sewer at much less expense, which was an example of rational public spending (gospodarność), and said: “And this is shocking; with contractors earning 660,880 zlotys, is this not money laundering in our municipality?” 11. The applicant asked the members of the Board many other questions relating to the 1999 budget. 12. During a break in the session the applicant gave an interview to a journalist from the local newspaper, the Local Express (Ekspres Powiatowy). 13. On 24 March 2000 the “Local Express” published an article entitled “Where is the million?” with the subtitle “Kleczew municipal councillor accuses Municipal Board of money laundering”. The article read that “according to the councillor’s statement made at the session of the Municipal Council, one million zlotys from the municipal budget allocated for the autonomous activity of the municipality has disappeared”. The article went on to cite the following statement made by the applicant: “... I made these calculations because there was something not right here, a million is missing and I am sure of that. Maybe the Municipal Board is money laundering? I will inform the institutions which deal with controlling the municipalities of the matter” 14. On 10 May 2000 seven members of the Kleczew Municipal Board lodged a claim with the Konin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) for the protection of their personal rights. Among other things, they sought an order requiring the applicant to publish an official apology in the local newspaper. 15. On 17 April 2002 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment finding that the statements made by the applicant at the Council meeting on 22 March 2000 and given to the press had been untrue and had infringed the plaintiffs’ personal rights (by tarnishing their good name and reputation). The court further found that the plaintiffs were public officials and their good name, reputation and reliability were of great importance. It ordered the applicant to publish an official apology in the Local Express and to make a statement of apology at the next Municipal Council session for his statements made at the 22 March 2000 session and subsequently reproduced in the Local Express of 24 March 2000. 16. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that judgment. 17. On 28 November 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) partly amended the first-instance judgment. It found that most of the applicant’s statements made at the session on 22 March 2000 had fallen within the limits of permissible criticism and that the applicant, as a representative of the local community acting in their interest, had had the right to ask critical questions relating to the way public money was spent by the Municipal Board. The court found, however, that the applicant’s allusion to money laundering made during the session of the Municipal Council had gone beyond the limits of permissible criticism and that by that statement, referring to a type of crime traditionally associated with organised criminal groups, the applicant had infringed the plaintiffs’ personal rights. The court ordered the applicant to publish an official apology for his allusion to money laundering in the Local Express and to make the same apology at the next session of the Municipal Council. 18. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). 19. On 1 August 2003 the Supreme Court refused to entertain that appeal. 20. The applicant appealed against that decision but, on 17 October 2003, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as inadmissible in law. 21. On 27 July 2007 the Konin District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for making false accusations about another person before a prosecuting body. Notification of the possible commitment of a crime was lodged by the Mayor of Kleczew. 22. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are pending.

5. The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Puck. 6. On 19 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and of membership in an organised criminal group. The investigation against him and several other persons was conducted by the Puck District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). 7. On 21 September 2007 the Wejherowo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. It also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the complex nature of the case. 8. The applicant’s pre‑trial detention was later extended by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 6 December 2007 and on 11 March and 10 June 2008. On 10 September 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) further extended the applicant’s detention. The courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. They also emphasised the need to secure the process of obtaining evidence as the case concerned activities of an organised criminal group. 9. On an unspecified date in 2008 the investigation was taken over by the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy). 10. On 5 December 2008 a bill of indictment against the applicant and seventeen other persons was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking and with membership in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment stated that six accused had pleaded guilty and they agreed to the sentences indicated by the prosecution authorities under Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (wniosek o skazanie). It was accompanied by 20 volumes of the case file. The prosecutor requested the court to hear 48 witnesses. 11. During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was further extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered on 11 December 2008 and 12 March and 9 June 2009; and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal’s decisions of 26 August and 25 November 2009, 23 February, 19 May, 25 August and 19 October 2010, 12 January and 23 March 2011. The applicant’s appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful. The courts continually justified their decisions by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences. They also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction. They further relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, emphasising that the accused and subsequently the key witnesses in the case had to testify before the trial court. They considered that the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings resulted, in particular, from the fact that he had been charged with membership in an organised criminal group. Finally, they found that the trial court conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner. They noted in this regard the complex character of the case and the voluminous documentation gathered (on 23 March 2011 the case file comprised 36 volumes). They also referred to multiple procedural motions of the accused and their lawyers. 12. Between 17 March 2010 and 17 March 2011 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him. On 17 March 2011 he started serving another prison sentence. 13. Meanwhile, on 19 February 2009 the trial court decided to examine the charges against six co‑accused in separate proceedings. 14. On 15 April 2009 the court scheduled the first hearing for 13 May 2009. It also scheduled five further hearings. 15. The hearings scheduled for 13 and 28 May 2009 were adjourned due to the absence of one of the accused. 16. The trial was eventually started on 9 July 2009. Subsequently, the trial court held ten further hearings by the end of 2009. 17. In 2010 the court held sixteen hearings altogether. Four of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences or sick‑leaves of the accused or their lawyers. 18. In 2011 eight hearings were held by 20 May 2011. On that date the Gdańsk Regional Court lifted the applicant’s detention on remand. 19. The proceedings are still pending before the first‑instance court.

4. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kaunas. 5. On 17 November 1992 the Kaunas City Board restored the applicant’s property rights to part of a building in Kaunas. In particular, it restored the applicant’s property rights to 1/12 of the uninhabited part of the building (hereafter “the disputed premises”). The property restitution decision specified that the property rights to the disputed premises would be restored in accordance with the procedure and terms fixed by the Government. 6. On 15 October 1993 the Kaunas City deputy mayor and the applicant signed a statement of transfer acceptance (priėmimo-perdavimo aktas), by which the disputed premises were transferred to the applicant. On 21 December 1993 the applicant registered his title to the property. 7. By a decision of 21 March 1994, the Kaunas City mayor declared the statement of transfer acceptance unlawful and consequently null and void. By a decision of 31 May 1994, the Kaunas City Board supplemented the decision of 17 November 1992 with a clause which specified the form in which the property rights were to be restored It was decided to pay compensation for the disputed premises, at that time occupied by a pharmacy, after the Government had determined the means and the procedure by which compensation was to be paid. 8. By a decision of 14 June 1994, the Kaunas City Board transferred the disputed premises from the balance sheet of one State-run company to the balance sheet of the State-run company of Kaunas area pharmacies. Subsequently, by a decision of the Kaunas City Board of 14 June 1996 the disputed premises were transferred into the private ownership of the closed-stock company Šlamučio vaistinė. 9. On 3 June 1994 the applicant brought a civil claim (“the first civil case”), challenging the local authorities’ decisions of 21 March 1994 and 31 May 1994. It was dismissed as unsubstantiated by the Kaunas City District Court on 4 July 1994. 10. On 22 August 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court had not examined all the relevant circumstances. In particular, it had not taken account of the fact that, at the time of the adoption of the impugned decisions, the applicant had already been recognised as the owner of the entire building. The Supreme Court observed that only a court and not a local authority could have annulled the applicant’s ownership rights. 11. On 7 October 1994 the Kaunas City District Court decided to suspend the civil proceedings further to a request by the applicant, on account of the illness of one of his relatives, V.A., who was also a plaintiff in that case. The court ordered the applicant to inform it when his relative’s state of health would allow her to participate in the proceedings. 12. On 3 October 1994 the State-run company of Kaunas area pharmacies brought a civil claim, seeking the partial annulment of the Kaunas City Board’s decision of 17 November 1992 (hereinafter “the second civil case”). 13. On 8 January 1996 the applicant and other plaintiffs brought a new civil claim (hereinafter “the third civil claim”), challenging the Kaunas City Board’s decision of 14 June 1994. 14. On 1 July 1999 the Kaunas City District Court of its own motion resumed the civil proceedings in the first civil case. 15. On 2 September 1999 the Kaunas City District Court decided to join all three cases and examine them together. 16. On 9 September 1999 the Kaunas City District Court granted the applicant’s claim. It declared the local authority’s decisions of 21 March 1994 and 31 May 1994 null and void, restoring the applicant’s title to the premises occupied by the pharmacy. 17. On 28 February 2000 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld that decision. 18. On 12 September 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and returned the case to the Kaunas City District Court for an examination de novo. The Supreme Court considered that the lower courts had again failed to assess all the relevant circumstances – even those to which attention had been drawn in its decision of 22 August 1994 – and that they had erred in law. 19. On 18 February 2004 the Kaunas City District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court observed that the law had not provided for restitution in kind of immovable property if it had been occupied by public-interest institutions, such as a pharmacy. The court further interpreted the decision of 17 November 1992, noting that it could not have been read as guaranteeing restitution in kind of the entire building, but only of the unoccupied part. The court annulled the ambiguous phrasing of the decision, leaving it to the local authorities to determine how to remedy the situation, either by pecuniary compensation or by the transfer of an equivalent property. 20. On 23 September 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 21. On 26 January 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant. 22. On 25 May 2005 certain parties to the case, including the applicant, submitted a request to the Kaunas City District Court to interpret its decision of 18 February 2004. Their request was dismissed on 21 June 2005. 23. On 3 April 2006 the applicant instituted civil proceedings challenging the initial proportions of his and other interested parties’ property rights, as fixed by the decision of 17 November 1992. In a final decision of 5 September 2007, the Kaunas City District Court noted that, although the applicant had been duly informed about the hearing, he or his lawyer had failed to appear, thus failing to contribute to the speedy resolution of the proceedings and showing no interest in their outcome. The applicant’s claim was left unexamined. 24. On 11 December 2008 the head of the Kaunas City Municipality issued an order to pay the applicant pecuniary compensation for the disputed premises. The compensation was to be paid in three instalments from 2008 to 2010 and for that purpose, in a letter of 15 December 2008, the Kaunas City Municipality requested the applicant to indicate the details of his bank account. The applicant refused to accept the municipality’s letter. 25. By the above-mentioned decision of 17 November 1992, the Kaunas City Board restored the applicant’s property rights to 1/12 of the plot of land adjacent to the disputed premises and measuring 2,097 sq. m. Pursuant to that decision, 1/12 of a plot of land measuring 1,288 sq. m was to be returned to him in kind and for the remaining part, equivalent to 1/12 of 809 sq. m, compensation was to be paid. 26. On 12 November 1996 the Kaunas City Municipality adopted a detailed territorial-planning decision which specified that the actual existing size of the plot of land which was to be returned in kind was 950 sq. m and not 1,288 sq. m. 27. On 8 April 2002 the applicant submitted a claim to the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court, requesting it to oblige the Registers Centre to record the applicant as the owner of 1/12 of the plot of land of 1,288 sq. m adjacent to the disputed premises. On 15 May 2002 the applicant also challenged the detailed territorial-planning decision of 12 November 1996. 28. On 4 March 2005 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The court noted that the decision of 17 November 1992 did not specify the exact location of the particular plot of land to which the applicant’s and other interested persons’ property rights were restored, since at the time of the decision no territorial planning had been carried out and the plot of land had not been measured or marked in any particular place. It followed from the nature of the decision that it merely established that property rights to a plot of land had been restored, without specifying the particular location of that plot. Consequently, the decision of 17 November 1992 did not give the applicant the right to register his title to that plot in the State Land Registry. 29. The court also noted that the decision of 12 November 1996 had established that the plot of land of 1,288 sq. m did not exist, its real size being 950 sq. m. No evidence had been submitted to the court which could question that finding. Since the decision of 17 November 1992 was valid, the issue of compensation for the difference in size of the plots (by assigning the applicant an equivalent plot) or their exact location was left for determination by the competent local authorities. The Kaunas Regional Administrative Court further noted that the territorial-planning decision aimed to establish the activity permitted on the disputed land and to safeguard the public interest. 30. On 21 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision. The court emphasised that, in accordance with domestic law, a plot of land in respect of which property rights were restored had to be delimited in a territorial plan. The decision of 17 November 1992 on the restoration of the applicant’s property rights to the plot of land at issue lacked any characterisation allowing it to be specifically identified (cartographically or by any other form of delimitation) as an item of immovable property. Moreover, data of that kind had not even existed at the time of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision. It followed that the Kaunas City Board had not established the applicant’s entitlement to a particular plot of land, but only his right to obtain restitution in kind of 1/12 of a plot of land measuring 1,288 sq. m. 31. On 22 January 2006 a cadastral survey was carried out, which fixed the dimensions of the plot of land adjacent to the disputed premises at 1,038 sq. m. The applicant took part in the process and accepted the results of the survey as regards the area of the land in question. On 9 May 2007, on the basis of the cadastral survey, the Kaunas County Governor adopted a decision on the basis of which the plot of land adjacent to the disputed premises was registered in the State Land Registry. On 2 April 2008 the Kaunas County Governor issued an order establishing the parts of the plot of land to be assigned to the applicant. 32. On 4 June 2008 the applicant requested the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court to discontinue the case regarding his claim of 8 April 2002. 33. By a decision of 13 October 2008, the head of the Kaunas Regional Administration restored the applicant’s property rights to a plot of land of 44 sq. m, adjacent to the disputed premises. The decision specified that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the remaining 131 sq. m. 34. In a letter of 11 December 2008 the local authorities requested the applicant to state his preference as regards compensation for the remaining 131 sq. m.

4. The case concerns an incident which took place on Friday, 20 May 2011, in front of the Banya Bashi Mosque in the centre of Sofia, in which leaders, members and supporters of the Bulgarian political party Ataka clashed with Muslim worshippers who had gathered around the mosque for the regular Friday prayer. The case also concerns the ensuing official investigations into that incident. 5. The Banya Bashi Mosque was built in 1576 and is currently the only operating mosque in Sofia. It can hold up to 700 worshippers. According to information provided by the Chief Mufti’s Office, there are about 30,000 Muslims in Sofia; some of them are Bulgarian nationals, and others immigrants from Turkey, the Middle East and Africa. The mosque is fitted with loudspeakers which were installed soon after the fall of the communist regime in 1989. Those loudspeakers are turned on during the call for prayer, which lasts about five minutes five times a day, and during the whole of the Friday prayer. They are turned off between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. to comply with the regulations concerning the level of urban noise. 6. The mosque itself is surrounded by railings approximately 1.5 metres high. Two sides of the mosque face onto a park, behind which is the Sofia Central Mineral Baths (“Софийска централна минерална баня”). One side faces onto a side street, Triaditsa Street. The final side faces onto the Princess Marie Louise Boulevard. There, the pavement of the boulevard is approximately 15 metres wide. Owing to a lack of space inside the mosque, worshippers often pray around the building during the Friday prayer, placing their prayer rugs on the boulevard pavement. On the boulevard side of the mosque, there is also a single storey extension, which is not protected by railings, the top of which is just over 1.5 metres high. It is therefore possible to gain access to the mosque compound from the boulevard by climbing onto the roof of the single storey extension. 7. Ataka is a Bulgarian political party. It was founded in April 2005 and, since then, in parliamentary elections has gained around 7-9% of the popular vote and 21-23 seats in Parliament. The party’s leader, Volen Siderov, has been a Member of Parliament for Ataka since June 2005. 8. In 2006 Ataka and Mr Siderov began a campaign against the noise emanating from the loudspeakers installed on Banya Bashi Mosque. That year, they gathered about 35,000 signatures for a petition, presented to the Sofia Municipal Council on 18 July 2006, which called for the removal of the loudspeakers. On the evening of 18 July 2006 Ataka organised a rally against the “howling” emanating from the loudspeakers during the call to prayer. 9. In 2007 Ataka’s mayoral candidate for Sofia, Mr S. Binev, declared that, if elected, he would ban the calls for prayer broadcast from those loudspeakers because he believed that they disturbed persons who had other religious beliefs. 10. On Friday, 29 April 2011, supporters of Ataka mounted loudspeakers on a car and circled close to mosque, playing recordings of church bells and Christian chants during the regular Friday prayer that was taking place at the time. This was repeated during the week that preceded the incident of 20 May 2011. In the words of one of Ataka’s Members of Parliament, this was done to counter the “noise terror” emanating from the mosque. 11. At about 12 noon on Friday, 20 May 2011, worshippers began to gather in and around the mosque for the regular Friday prayer. The applicant was one of them. He, along with thirty or forty other worshippers, remained outside the mosque, either in the surrounding park or on the pavement on Princess Marie Louise Boulevard. Prayer rugs were spread out on the pavement boulevard, in keeping with the worshippers’ normal practice. 12. At the same time, between one hundred and one hundred and fifty members and supporters of Ataka gathered in front of the mosque on the boulevard to protest against what they called the “howling” emanating from the loudspeakers installed on the mosque. The group included Mr Siderov, Mr D. Chukolov, the party’s deputy leader, Ms D. Gadzheva, a Member of Parliament for the party, and Mr D. Stoyanov, a Member of the European Parliament for the party. 13. According to information provided by the Government in the course of proceeding before the Court, on 19 May 2011 Ataka had notified the municipality that, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Assemblies, Meetings and Demonstrations Act 1990 (see paragraph 46 below), it intended to hold an assembly in the park behind the mosque (i.e. between the mosque and the Central Mineral Baths). This was scheduled for 1-5 p.m. on 20 May with 300 participants. This notification was received by the municipality at 9.54 a.m. on 19 May 2011. 14. The Government also provided copies of three letters which they had received from various authorities in the course of the proceedings. The first, from the municipality, stated that the Sofia Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was notified of the planned demonstration on 19 May 2011 at 10.50 a.m. The second, from Ministry of Internal Affairs, stated that the Sofia Directorate only learned of the demonstration at 11.40 a.m. on 20 May 2011 when they received information that supporters of Ataka had started to gather in the park beside the mosque. Until that moment, the Sofia Directorate had received no information about the demonstration. At this point, specialist police officers were dispatched to scene. A request for co‑operation from the municipality was then received by the directorate by fax at 12.13 p.m. The third, from Directorate of Religious Denominations (“Дирекция по вероизповеданията”), a governmental agency attached to the Council of Ministers, stated that, around 11 a.m. on 20 May 2011, they were informed by the Deputy Chief Mufti that the Ataka demonstration was going to be held in proximity to the mosque and that they immediately contacted the Ministry of Internal Affairs, after which the specialist police officers were dispatched to the mosque. They also contacted the municipality, which confirmed that permission had been given for the assembly to take place in the park between the mosque and the Sofia Central Mineral Baths. 15. Video recordings of the event made by the media and broadcast on Bulgarian television have been provided to the Court by the parties. On the basis of those recordings, the following events can be established. 16. The demonstrators congregated, not on the Central Mineral Baths side of the mosque, but on Princess Marie Louise Boulevard in front of the mosque, where the worshippers had already began to gather for Friday prayers. Most of the demonstrators were wearing black t-shirts featuring the inscriptions “Erdogan, you owe us 10 billion” and “Ataka says: No to Turkey in the EU”. Many carried large Bulgarian flags and Ataka flags, which were green and featured the inscriptions “Ataka” and “Let’s get Bulgaria back”. In the course of the demonstration, the participants played Bulgarian patriotic songs from loudspeakers mounted on cars. 17. The recordings also show the demonstrators shouting invective at the worshippers, calling them “Turkish stooges”, “filthy terrorists”, “scum”, “janissaries”, “cut-offs” and “Islamists”. They also depict the protestors shouting “Off to Ankara!”, “Do not soil our land!”, and “Your feet stink! That is why you wash them!” One of the participants in the rally can be seen slowly cutting a Turkish fez with a pocket knife, saying “Can you hear me? We shall now show you what will happen to each one of you!” 18. While this was happening, the mosque’s imam, using the loudspeaker system, repeatedly appealed to the worshippers not to respond to the demonstrators’ provocation. 19. When the Friday prayer started, one demonstrator climbed onto the roof of the single storey extension and played two loudspeakers on the roof in order to suppress the sound of the prayer. Five or six worshippers then interrupted their prayers, climbed onto the roof and tried to move the loudspeakers. 20. In response, several more demonstrators entered the mosque compound by climbing onto the roof of the single storey extension. A scuffle ensued, in which members and supporters of Ataka, some of whom were carrying wooden flagpoles and metal pipes, moved against the worshippers and started hitting them. Some of the worshippers hit back in response. Some can be seen holding and waving plastic tubing which appears to have been torn from the side of the mosque. Approximately ten police officers also climbed onto the roof of the single storey extension to separate the fighting parties; three people were then arrested. While this was happening two or three other police officers can be seen attempting to keep the demonstrators in the park beside the mosque and back from the side of the single storey extension: at this point, there were over a hundred demonstrators in the park. Some of them can be seen throwing eggs at the worshippers. 21. Another few police officers can be seen attempting to maintain a human cordon between the remaining demonstrators (another fifty or so) who were standing on the boulevard 3-4 metres back from the area where the worshippers’ prayer mats are spread out, though several members of Ataka, including its leaders, can be seen standing in that latter area, just in front of the mosque railings. 22. The demonstrators then continued to pelt the worshippers with eggs and stones and insult them. One of the demonstrators can be seen on the video recording wielding rolled up banner and shouting “We have been putting up with you for so many years. Where else would permit this [praying outside a mosque]? To whom are you praying?” 23. The parties accept that five police officers, five worshippers and Ms D. Gadzheva, who was hit on the chin by a flying stone, were injured in the course of the incident. It is not possible from the video recordings to determine who was responsible for her injury. One of the Muslim worshippers had to be hospitalised because he had concussion. Two police vehicles also sustained damage. 24. In apparent response to the police arresting two demonstrators on the roof of the single storey extension, Mr Siderov, surrounded by members of Ataka and journalists, then spoke into a microphone and addressed the police officers who were present at the scene. He asked them why they had not arrested any of “the real criminals who threw the stones” and accused them of bothering “Bulgarian patriots” rather than Islamists who “promoted violence against Christianity”. He then turned to the senior police officer at the scene, asking him if he was a janissary and suggesting that he put on a fez. Finally, he stated that, in Bulgaria, there was no Bulgarian police only a Turkish one and that those police officers present were a disgrace to their uniforms. 25. The incident ended at around 1.55 p.m. when, led by Mr Siderov and others, the demonstrators left the scene, Mr Siderov stating that he was going to Parliament to ask for the resignation of the Minister of Internal Affairs. As Mr Siderov was about to leave, at least four demonstrators wearing black t-shirts can be seen on the video recording piling some of the worshippers’ prayer rugs and setting fire to them. No action was taken against those responsible, though it appears the police did call the fire brigade. 26. A number of politicians, including the then President of the Republic, Georgi Parvanov, condemned Ataka’s involvement in the incident. 27. On 27 May 2011 the Parliament adopted a declaration also condemning the incident. It read as follows: “Members of Parliament categorically condemn the aggression of the political party ‘Ataka’ of 20 May 2011 against worshippers in the centre of the capital. It is particularly scandalous that this was done on a Friday, a holy day for Muslims, at the time of their obligatory prayer. With those actions, that party isolated itself from democratic society in Bulgaria. The conduct of that party is deeply alien to the Bulgarian people, to its religious and ethnic tolerance. We express our profound disquiet at the attempts to undermine the ethnic peace and to stir up religious tensions between Bulgarian citizens. Following its attempted aggression against ethnic peace, which gives rise to a threat to the national security of the Republic of Bulgaria, the political party ‘Ataka’ has become dangerous for the government of the country. The Bulgarian Constitution says that it is impermissible to use religious communities and institutions, or religious beliefs, for political ends. We, Members of Parliament, insist that all competent State authorities, including the prosecuting authorities and the courts, take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Bulgaria. We call on the mass media to behave responsibly, which in this tense time full of provocations means not to provide a platform to the voice of hatred.” 28. There have been two separate series of investigations into the events at the mosque that day: one by the police, the other by the National Investigation Service. 29. In a letter dated 18 March 2014, the Ministry of Internal Affairs set out the progress made in the police investigations. Three investigations had been opened: one into the injury sustained by Ms Gadzheva; a second into injuries sustained by two police officers and a cameraman, and criminal damage to the mosque and a police car; and a third into the violence directed towards the worshippers. The first two investigations have been suspended without anyone being charged. 30. The letter also stated that, in the course of the third investigation, thirty people had been interviewed as witnesses, and video recordings and other evidence had been obtained. In the course of that investigation, seven people had been charged (“привлечени като обвиняеми”) with aggravated hooliganism contrary to Article 325 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 49 below). No information has been provided about whether those people were then prosecuted and, if so, whether any convictions were obtained. 31. An investigation was also opened by the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office on 25 May 2011. The focus of that investigation was whether there had been any offences committed under Article 164 § 1 of the Criminal Code (the prohibition on hate speech motivated by religion: see paragraph 55 below). 32. On 6 December 2011 the applicant asked to be allowed to take part in that investigation as a victim within the meaning of Article 74 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2005 (see paragraph 58 below). On 13 December 2011 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office refused the applicant’s request. It said that the offence under Article 164 § 1 of the Criminal Code 1968 was a “conduct” (“формално”) one (see paragraphs 55 and 57 below) and could therefore not have a victim. 33. On 16 March 2012 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office. On 2 April 2012 the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office referred the case back to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office, instructing it to rule on the applicant’s request by means of a formal decision. On 5 April 2012 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office did so, repeating the reasons that it had given on 13 December 2011. 34. On 17 April 2012 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 28 May 2012 the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office found that the question whether an offence was a “conduct” (“формално”) or a “result” (“резултатно”) one was irrelevant as to whether a person could be a victim of that offence. However, there was no evidence that the applicant had been present when the alleged offence had been committed or that the offence had directly affected him. It was therefore necessary to interview the applicant. 35. Accordingly, on 7 June 2012 the applicant was interviewed by the investigator in charge of the case. He stated that he had arrived at the mosque at 11.30 a.m. and had sat in the park between the mosque and the Central Mineral Baths until prayers began. He described the demonstrations’ behaviour in the course of their demonstration, including the insults he had heard. He said that the police had done their job well in keeping the groups apart. According to the applicant, in the course of the interview the investigator was hostile to him and his religion, asking him whether he knew whether he was entitled to pray in front of the mosque and whether he had obtained permission to do so by an appropriate authority. 36. On 16 August 2012 the applicant requested that the supervising prosecutor assign the case to another investigator on the basis that the original investigator was ethnically and religiously biased. He also requested access to the case file. 37. On 5 September 2012 the applicant once again asked to be allowed to take part in the investigation as a victim of the alleged offence. 38. On 19 November 2012 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office refused the applicant’s request, again finding that the offence under Article 164 § 1 of the Criminal Code 1968 was indeed a “conduct” offence (“формално престъпление”) (see paragraphs 55 and 57 below) and could therefore not have a victim. It went on to reject the applicant’s request to have the case re‑assigned to another investigator, reasoning that, not being party to the proceedings, the applicant had no standing to make such a request. For the same reason, the applicant had no right to inspect the case file. 39. On 31 October 2013, after unsuccessful appeals by the applicant to Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, the deputy Chief Prosecutor decided that “conduct” offences (“формални престъпления”) could in principle have a victim. It was therefore necessary to check whether the applicant had himself been prevented from carrying out his religious observances, and if so, in what way. That point had not been fully elucidated in his first interview, which made it necessary to interview him again, before deciding whether he could be allowed to take part in the proceedings in his capacity as a victim. (b) The progress of the investigation 40. It appears that the National Investigation Service’s investigation is still ongoing. Although a number of witnesses have been interviewed and expert reports obtained, no charges have been brought against any person in the framework of that investigation. However, the Government have submitted part of the investigation file. This includes two statements given by a Mr M. In the second of those two statements he admitted to being the person responsible for cutting up the fez during the demonstration. He stated that he was instructed to do so by Mr Siderov and that Mr Siderov told him to do it before Mr Siderov arrived at the scene. He said he could not refuse because he was working for Ataka at the time. Mr M. also stated that it would have been possible to avoid any collisions between the demonstrators and worshippers if Mr Siderov had wanted. This could have been done by returning to the allocated place for the demonstration or by withdrawing after the scuffle on the single storey extension. Mr M. also stated that young, far-right supporters of Ataka had been drafted in from the town Gabrovo specifically for the demonstration and that they had been placed in the front line of the demonstration. In Mr M.’s view, Mr Siderov could have also avoided a confrontation with the worshippers had he not placed the Gabrovo group at the front of the demonstration. 41. From the investigation file as submitted to the Court, various efforts were made to summon the Ataka party leaders who were at the demonstration in order to interview them. With the exception of Mr Chukolov, the party’s deputy leader, who has been interviewed, those efforts have failed.

4. The applicants were born in 1973, 1965 and 1960 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Ankara and the third applicant lives in Trabzon. 5. The applicants were employed by the Culture and Education Department of the Sincan District Council in Ankara and were involved in the organisation of public activities and events during religious and national days. Upon the instructions of the mayor and the deputy mayor, the applicants organised on 31 January 1997 a special night called the “Jerusalem Night” during the month of Ramadan. The event was announced months in advance and representatives of the security forces and several important personalities living in the district were invited. The hall was decorated with posters of martyrs who had given their lives for the liberation of Jerusalem. The applicants also organised a five-minute play for the evening. The second applicant cleaned the hall, set up and maintained the sound system and welcomed the guests. The play, which was written by the first and third applicants, took the form of a conversation between a father and his son about life in Palestine and the struggle of the Palestinian people. The first applicant played the role of the father in the play. The mayor of Sincan and the Ambassador to Iran made speeches before the play began. 6. The second and third applicants were taken into police custody on 5 February 1997 and the first applicant on 6 February 1997. They were accused of disseminating propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah. During their police interrogations, the applicants denied the charges against them. 7. On 13 February 1997 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor. During their questioning, they repeated the statements they had made at the police station. 8. On the same day the applicants were brought before the investigating judge attached to the Ankara State Security Court, where they made similar statements. Subsequently, the investigating judge ordered that the applicants be remanded in custody. 9. In an indictment dated 7 March 1997, the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants. It was alleged that they had disseminated propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation. The prosecution therefore called for the applicants to be sentenced pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Law. 10. On 15 October 1997 the Ankara State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, found that the applicants had aided and abetted a terrorist organisation by engaging in propaganda in support thereof. It found the applicants guilty as charged, sentenced them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and debarred them from public service for three years. 11. On 21 September 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Ankara State Security Court.

4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bielsko-Biala. 5. On 18 December 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, several counts of fraud, receiving stolen goods, bribery, forgery, deception, drug trafficking and inciting to theft while acting in an organised criminal group. On 20 December 2001 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the risk that, as a former police officer, he might tamper with evidence. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. 6. On 13 February 2002 the charges against the applicant were severed from the main proceedings instituted against several suspects. The case was referred to the Bielsko-Biala District Court. 7. On 15 March 2002 the Bielsko-Biała District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18 June 2002. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation and the complexity of the case. It also stressed that his detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence, in particular to obtain expert reports, to take evidence from witnesses and suspects and to confront witnesses and suspects. 8. The detention order was subsequently extended by the Bielsko-Biała District Court on 14 June, 25 June and 27 September 2002. The court repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions. 9. On 11 December 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 31 May 2003. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and co-accused. Moreover, the court found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the fact that he had formerly been a police officer. It also referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and to the complexity of the case. 10. On 4 October 2002 the applicant requested access to the case file. 11. On 17 December 2002 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) refused the applicant access to the case file. He relied on the risk that the applicant might attempt to tamper with evidence. Furthermore, the prosecutor stated that the applicant would be granted access to the case file later in the proceedings, at the close of the investigation. 12. On 6 March 2003 the Katowice Prosecutor of Appeal upheld the impugned order, finding that the applicant’s defence rights had been limited only temporarily and that the refusal of access to the case file was necessary for the proper conduct of the investigation. 13. On 20 May 2003 a bill of indictment was lodged. However, the court decided to return the case to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation. 14. On 30 May 2003 the Bielsko-Biala District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 August 2003. The court repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions. 15. On 18 June 2003 a new bill of indictment was lodged. It listed 21 charges laid against members of an organised criminal group. 16. On 29 August 2003 the Bielsko-Biała District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18 December 2003. On 17 December 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal extended that period to 18 June 2004. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on 9 June, 15 September and 17 November 2004. The courts relied on the grounds stated in the previous decisions. 17. In the course of the investigation and the court proceedings the applicant made numerous unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and against decisions extending his detention. 18. Between 28 October 2003 and 18 November 2004 the court held 32 hearings. 19. On 18 November 2004 Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment. He appealed. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on three occasions. 20. On 30 January 2006 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment. At the same time it extended the applicant’s detention until 18 April 2006. The court considered that the reasons for keeping him in detention were still valid. 21. On 13 April 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention to 18 October 2006. 22. On 21 September 2006, upon the applicant’s request, he was released from detention. 23. Between 5 May and 15 December 2006 the court held 7 hearings. 24. The proceedings are still pending. 25. On 11 October 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). 26. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings from 18 November 2004, that is, the date of delivery of the first-instance judgment, to 21 September 2005 (the referral of the case to the court of second instance) had been excessive. 27. On 29 November 2005 the Regional Court dismissed his complaint. The court held that there were no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible. It referred to the complexity of the case, the time needed for the preparation of written grounds for the judgment, which comprised 118 pages, and problems with serving one of the defendants with a notice concerning his appeal. 28. On 21 June 2006 the applicant lodged a new complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings after April 2006 had been excessive. 29. On 18 September 2006 the Bielsko-Biala Regional Court rejected his complaint, relying on section 14 of the 2004 Act (under this provision a fresh length complaint in the same proceedings cannot be lodged earlier than 12 months from the date on which a court has given a decision concerning the first length complaint).

6. The applicant was born in 1986. 7. On 15 March 1999 an unidentified person or persons placed an advertisement on an Internet dating site in the name of the applicant, who was 12 years old at the time, without his knowledge. The advertisement mentioned his age and year of birth, gave a detailed description of his physical characteristics, a link to the web page he had at the time, which showed his picture, as well as his telephone number, which was accurate save for one digit. In the advertisement, it was claimed that he was looking for an intimate relationship with a boy of his age or older “to show him the way”. 8. The applicant became aware of the advertisement on the Internet when he received an e-mail from a man, offering to meet him and “then to see what you want”. 9. The applicant’s father requested the police to identify the person who had placed the advertisement in order to bring charges against that person. The service provider, however, refused to divulge the identity of the holder of the so-called dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) address in question, regarding itself bound by the confidentiality of telecommunications as defined by law. 10. The police then asked the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) to oblige the service provider to divulge the said information pursuant to section 28 of the Criminal Investigations Act (esitutkintalaki, förundersökningslagen; Act no. 449/1987, as amended by Act no. 692/1997). 11. In a decision issued on 19 January 2001, the District Court refused since there was no explicit legal provision authorising it to order the service provider to disclose telecommunications identification data in breach of professional secrecy. The court noted that by virtue of Chapter 5a, section 3, of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångsmedelslagen; Act no. 450/1987) and section 18 of the Protection of Privacy and Data Security in Telecommunications Act (laki yksityisyydensuojasta televiestinnässä ja teletoiminnan tietoturvasta, lag om integritetsskydd vid telekommunikation och dataskydd inom televerksamhet; Act no. 565/1999) the police had the right to obtain telecommunications identification data in cases concerning certain offences, notwithstanding the obligation to observe secrecy. However, malicious misrepresentation was not such an offence. 12. On 14 March 2001 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the decision and on 31 August 2001 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal. 13. The person who had answered the dating advertisement and contacted the applicant was identified through his e-mail address. 14. The managing director of the company which provided the Internet service could not be charged, because in his decision of 2 April 2001 the prosecutor found that the alleged offence had become time-barred. The alleged offence was a violation of the Personal Data Act (henkilötietolaki, personuppgiftslagen; Act no. 523/99, which came into force on 1 June 1999). More specifically, the service provider had published a defamatory advertisement on its website without verifying the identity of the sender.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Tryavna. 6. In 1999 the relations between the applicant and her partner N.B., a local police officer, deteriorated and they separated. 7. On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant filed a request to the district prosecutor to open criminal proceedings against N.B. for physical and psychological abuse. That was refused by a decision of 4 March 2002. 8. On 27 July 2000 G.I. and D.M., who according to the applicant were friends of N.B., filed complaints against the applicant to the district prosecutor, stating that she was harassing them as she was mentally ill. The prosecutor sent the complaints to the police to gather information concerning the applicant’s mental state. He instructed them, in particular, to interview friends and family of the applicant. 9. On 8 August 2000 the police reported to the prosecutor that the applicant should be subjected to compulsory psychiatric treatment. On 28 September 2000 the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination with a view to establishing whether it was necessary to initiate judicial proceedings for her compulsory psychiatric treatment. The applicant maintains that she never received a summons to voluntarily appear before the authorities in order to undergo any such examination. 10. In the morning of 4 October 2000 a police officer visited the applicant in her house and requested her appearance at the police station in relation to her complaint against N.B. The applicant contends that when she arrived at the police station, she was forced into an ambulance. There she was served with a prosecutor’s order for her detention in a psychiatric hospital in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. 11. On the same day the applicant was taken to the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital where she was kept for a month for a psychiatric examination. The doctors noted in their opinion that the applicant was suffering from certain, apparently not very serious, disorders. They did not express an opinion on the need for the applicant’s confinement. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 3 November 2000. 12. On 13 November 2000 the prosecutor decided not to request the applicant’s committal for compulsory psychiatric treatment, noting that the applicant did not suffer from a mental disease. 13. On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant filed a complaint to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that her detention in a psychiatric hospital constituted an abuse of office on the part of the district prosecutor. The complaint was referred to the regional prosecutor who dismissed it on 22 April 2002. He stated, in particular, that the actions of the district prosecutor in respect of the applicant’s detention had been lawful. 14. On 29 August 2001 G.I. filed a fresh complaint to the district prosecutor, claiming again harassment on the part of the applicant. Following another police inquiry, on 20 September 2001 the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination. 15. In a letter of 26 September 2001 the director of the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital required the applicant’s appearance in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. The applicant did not respond to the letter. 16. On 23 January 2002 the applicant appeared before the local police station in order to obtain her new identification document when she was detained and sent to the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital. The applicant was kept there for a month for another examination. The doctors noted the same disorders as in their previous opinion. They did not express an opinion on the need for the applicant’s confinement. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 22 February 2002. 17. In an order of 25 February 2002 the district prosecutor decided not to proceed with the matter as the applicant did not suffer from a mental disease. 18. Upon the applicant’s initiative, on 6 March 2002 experts from the Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Clinic in Sofia issued a report concerning her mental state. They concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a mental disease. The experts further noted that her detention in a psychiatric hospital had considerably traumatised her. 19. Relying on the Convention, the Bulgarian Constitution, section 1 of the 1988 State Responsibility for Damage Caused to Citizens Act (see Relevant domestic law, below) and the Court’s judgments in the cases of Varbanov v. Bulgaria (no. 31365/96, ECHR 2000‑X) and Kepenerov v. Bulgaria (no. 39269/98, 31 July 2003), on 7 May 2003 the applicant lodged claims for damages with the Dryanovo District Court against the police and the Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant claimed, in particular, that her first detention had been in breach of the relevant procedure as she had never been officially requested to appear before the authorities (see paragraph 9 above). She further maintained, referring to the Court’s findings in the abovementioned judgments, that both detentions had been unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which had a priority over the domestic legislation in case of discrepancy with its provisions, and that she had not had access to a court. She also argued that the actions of the police and the prosecutor had interfered with her right to a good reputation in violation with the Bulgarian Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention. 20. In a judgment of 13 February 2004 the District Court allowed the claims. The court observed that when detaining the applicant the police had acted without a written order and thus in breach of section 1 of the 1988 Act. The court also discussed the impossibility for the applicant to have her detention be examined by a court. The court further held that by ordering the applicant’s detentions the prosecution authorities had acted in violation of Article 5 of the Convention. In view of that the court awarded compensation for the sustained damage. 21. The respondents appealed. In a final judgment of 15 March 2005 the Gabrovo Regional Court quashed the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the applicant’s claims. As regards the claim against the police, the court stated that the police had acted lawfully and in execution of the prosecutor’s orders. As regards the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office, the court found that they had been lawful. The court further acknowledged that the national legislation was deficient in that it did not provide for judicial control over the prosecutor’s order for forced psychiatric examination. However, any claims for compensation in this regard should have been brought against the State and not the Prosecutor’s Office.

4. The applicant lives in Ankara. 5. In 1973 the authorities conducted a land registry survey in Mudanya and revised the local plans. Following this revision, 25 plots belonging to the applicant were registered in the Land Registry under the title of 23 other persons. In June 1973 the applicant challenged this decision and applied to the Land Registry Council to have this decision annulled. However, on 26 May 1974 the Council rejected the applicant’s request. 6. On 20 June 1974 the applicant brought an action in the Mudanya Land Registry Court against 23 defendants. She alleged that the land in dispute had belonged to her before the revision, and requested that the records in the Land Registry be corrected. 7. In 1982 the case was transferred to the Mudanya Cadastre Court. 8. On 14 May 2002 the Mudanya Cadastre Court rejected the applicant’s claims. 9. On 25 March 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Mudanya Cadastre Court. 10. The proceedings are still pending before the Mudanya Cadastre Court.

7. The first three applicants were born in 1934, 1943 and 1952 respectively, and the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants were born in 1962, 1974 and 1976 respectively. The date of birth of the fourth applicant is unknown. The applicants live in the village of Arshty in the Sunzhenskiy District of the Republic of Ingushetia. This district borders on the Chechen Republic. 8. The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are summarised in section A below (paragraphs 9-60). A description of the documents submitted by the Government is contained in section B below (paragraphs 61-104). 9. The first applicant is the mother of Khalid Khatsiyev, born in 1969, and of the third and fourth applicants. The second applicant is the mother of Kazbek Akiyev, born in 1970, and of the fifth and sixth applicants. The seventh applicant was married to Kazbek Akiyev. 10. Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev were married and had two and four children respectively. At the material time both men lived in Moscow and went to Arshty in August 2000 to help their families with seasonal agricultural work. 11. The facts surrounding the death of the applicants’ two relatives are disputed by the parties. (a) The applicants’ version 12. The applicants did not witness the events described below and the following account is based on eyewitness statements submitted by them. 13. In August 2000 the residents of Arshty were cutting grass. The work was done collectively by all villagers in small groups of five to six people. 14. On 6 August 2000 about a hundred people divided into small groups were working in the surrounding hills. One of the groups was formed by Khalid Khatsiyev, Kazbek Akiyev, their cousin Ilyas Akiyev, and three men who had come to Arshty as internally displaced persons from Chechnya – Baymurza Aldiyev, Aslambek Imagamayev, and Aslambek Dishniyev. 15. Aslambek Imagamayev stated that while working they had seen several helicopters bombing a forest area near the village of Bamut in Chechnya, about ten kilometres away from them. 16. Around 1.00 or 1.30 p.m. the group in which the applicants’ relatives were working had decided to go home for lunch, when two military helicopters appeared from the direction of Bamut and started circling low above the field. Aslambek Imagamayev identified them as MI-24s. One of the helicopters fired a burst from an aircraft machine-gun at a spot situated 40-50 metres from the men. They were scared and, throwing down their scythes, ran to a white Niva car and drove down the hill in the direction of Arshty. Baymurza Aldiyev and Aslambek Imagamayev claimed that the helicopters had flown away but then reappeared and the men saw them right above the car, hovering at low altitude. They stopped the vehicle and ran for cover in different directions. 17. The helicopters launched non-guided missiles and strafed the Niva car with aircraft machine-guns with the result that its back tyres were flattened. They then chased the men. One of the helicopters fired a missile at the place where Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev were hiding. They were both killed and Ilias Akiyev, who was nearby, was wounded by shrapnel in his leg. 18. Aslambek Imagamayev stated that he had run through the forest to tell the villagers what had happened. He stated that he had heard the helicopters shooting for some time. Baymurza Aldiyev testified that he had run towards the river and had hidden there in a bush. He estimated that the attack on the Niva car had continued for about an hour and a half. After the helicopters had left, he returned to the vehicle and found the bodies of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev about fifty metres away from the car. 19. The bodies were taken to the village in the damaged Niva. 20. The attack and the deaths were reported by human rights NGOs and the Russian mass-media in August 2000. (b) The Government’s version 21. According to the Government, since the beginning of the counter-terrorist operation within the territory of the Chechen Republic, the civil and military authorities had taken all necessary steps to secure the safety of civilians residing in the North Caucasus. The residents of the Republic of Ingushetia had been notified, through the television and press, of the risk of being at the administrative border with Chechnya as well as of the actions they should perform when in the area of a counter-terrorist operation so as to indicate that they did not belong to illegal armed groups. In particular, once they had established “visual contact” with representatives of the federal forces, residents were supposed to stop moving, mark themselves with a piece of white cloth and wait for the arrival of a group of servicemen for an identity check. 22. On 6 August 2000 the authorities carried out a special operation aimed at searching for the base camp, eight kilometres to the south of the village of Arshty, of a group of around 250 illegal fighters, who were to be detained. The operation was planned and commanded by senior officers of the Western Group of the United Group Alignment (Западная группировка войск Объединенной группировки войск). The Government refused to indicate the names of those officers or provide details of the operation, stating that disclosure of the information might be harmful to the State’s national security interests. According to them, “in the materials of the preliminary investigation file there was no information” as to whether the residents of Arshty had been warned in advance about the operation in question, or whether the military personnel involved had been instructed to avoid civilian casualties. 23. During the operation, a federal transport MI-8 helicopter was hit by fire from members of illegal armed groups in the vicinity of the village of Arshty and crashed to the ground. Orders were given to evacuate the crew and servicemen on board the helicopter from the site of the crash. The Government alleged, with reference to the findings of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office, that servicemen who had arrived to evacuate those injured also came under fire from illegal fighters. The airspace above the area of the rescue operation was patrolled in shifts by a pair of military MI-24 helicopters. 24. At about 1 p.m., while patrolling over the area situated four kilometres to the west of Arshty and four kilometres from the site of the crash of the MI-8 helicopter, the pilots of the MI-24 helicopters saw a Niva car and a group of at least five men with light machine-guns. In the Government’s submission, the pilots observed the men through a target control system of tenfold magnification, from a distance of two kilometres and at an altitude of 100-150 metres. 25. According to the Government, the pilots reported this to the command centre and having received the respective order fired warning shots at a spot situated fifty metres away from the car and the people. The men immediately got into the car and started driving away, instead of staying where they were and waiting for the arrival of ground troops for an identity check. The pilots again reported to their superiors, received the respective order and fired warning shots for the second time, but the car continued moving. In order to prevent the Niva car with unidentified armed men inside from driving further without authorisation in the close vicinity of the zone of the rescue operation, the pilots, pursuant to their superiors’ order, fired at the car with the result that Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev were killed and Ilias Akiyev was wounded. 26. The Government also submitted that “there was no information in the materials of the preliminary investigation file” as to whether the attacked men had used the firearms against the pilots, and that “according to its technical description, a light machine-gun [was] ineffective for hitting a target at a distance of over one kilometre”. 27. According to the Government, after the rescue operation in respect of the crashed MI-8 helicopter had been completed, the servicemen had inspected the area near the crash site and found a Niva car as well as hand grenades, spent cartridges from light machine-guns and a bloodstained ammunition belt near the car. 28. In the evening of 6 August 2000 several officials from the prosecutor’s office of the Sunzhenskiy District (прокуратура Сунженского района – “the Sunzhenskiy Prosecutor’s Office”) and the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia (прокуратура Республики Ингушетия – “the Republican Prosecutor’s Office”) arrived at the scene of the incident. They also brought a forensic expert from the city of Nalchik, in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria. The officials questioned the witnesses to the attack, inspected the scene of the incident and collected pieces of shrapnel and damaged scythes. No firearms or ammunition were found at the scene of the incident. The officials also examined the bodies and noted the wounds caused by shrapnel and by large-calibre guns. 29. According to the applicants, at the same time the head of the village administration contacted the military authorities. Two armoured personnel carriers with servicemen arrived in the village, and together with some local officials they proceeded to the site, but soon afterwards the local officials returned because the military allegedly refused to proceed further. 30. The Government submitted that on 6 August 2000, on the basis of the information received from the Arshty administration, the Republican Prosecutor’s Office had instituted criminal proceedings under Article 105 § 2 (a) and (f) of the Russian Criminal Code (murder of two or more persons committed by a generally dangerous method). The case file was assigned the number 20600055. After the initial investigative measures had been taken, the case was transferred to military prosecutors and given the number 34/32/0189-01. 31. According to the applicants, in the absence of any news of the investigation for several weeks after the incident, they applied to the Sunzhenskiy Prosecutor’s Office and then to the Republican Prosecutor’s Office. They were informed that a criminal investigation had been opened on 6 August 2000 and that the case file had been given the number 20600055. In reply to their subsequent requests to the prosecutors at various levels the applicants received hardly any substantive information about the investigation into the attack. On several occasions they received copies of letters by which their requests had been forwarded to different prosecutors’ offices. 32. On 29 August 2000 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office (Главная военная прокуратура), in reply to a request made by a deputy of the State Duma from Ingushetia on the applicants’ behalf, stated that the criminal investigation into the killing of two persons near the village of Arshty had been supervised by the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit (военная прокуратура Северо-Кавказского военного округа) and that he would be informed of any results of the investigation. 33. On 30 October 2000 the preliminary investigation into the attack of 6 August 2000 was stayed for failure to identify those responsible. It was then resumed on 13 November 2000 (see paragraphs 69-70 below). It does not appear that the applicants were informed of any of those decisions. 34. On 14 November 2000 the applicants were informed by the Republican Prosecutor’s Office that on 9 August 2000 the file in case no. 20600055 had been transferred for investigation to garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 (59 военная прокуратура гарнизона) in Mozdok, North Ossetia. 35. On 14 November 2000 a person acting as the applicants’ representative went to Mozdok to find out about the investigation. There he submitted an application stating the facts of the attack and asking for an update on the investigation. An officer of the prosecutor’s office showed him a register of cases, according to which the case had been transferred to a military prosecutor in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia, for further investigation. 36. On 15 November 2000 the representative went to Vladikavkaz and talked to the military prosecutor, who informed him that the case had been sent to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (военная прокуратура – войсковая часть 20102) based in Khankala, the main Russian military base in Chechnya. On the same day the representative filed a request for an update on the investigation, on the second applicant’s behalf. 37. On 24 November 2000 the second applicant wrote to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. She stated the facts of the case, referred to the number of the criminal investigation file communicated to her by the Sunzhenskiy Prosecutor’s Office and asked for an update on the investigation. She also requested that she be granted the status of victim in the proceedings. According to the second applicant, she received no reply to that letter. 38. On 30 December 2000 the investigating authorities again suspended the investigation on account of failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. It appears that this decision was then quashed by superior prosecutors twice, on 11 March and 24 October 2001 (see paragraphs 72, 73 and 75 below). It does not appear that the applicants were notified of any of those decisions. 39. On 29 January 2001 the fourth applicant was informed by the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 that his complaint had been added to the criminal investigation file opened in relation to his brother’s death. The date of the fourth applicant’s complaint was not specified. 40. On 30 May 2001 the second applicant wrote to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 and to the military prosecutor of the North Caucasus Military Circuit. She enquired about developments in the investigation and requested that she and the first applicant be declared victims, in accordance with the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. She received no reply to those queries, apart from a letter of 21 June 2001 by which the military prosecutor of the North Caucasus Military Circuit informed her that her letter had been forwarded to garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 in Mozdok. 41. On 29 August 2001 the civil registration office for the Sunzhenskiy District issued death certificates numbered 376 and 405 for Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev respectively. The date and place of death for both was recorded as 6 August 2000, village of Arshty, Sunzhenskiy District. 42. On 15 December 2001 the investigating authorities took a decision by which the criminal proceedings in connection with the events of 6 August 2000 were discontinued in part, as regards the superior officers’ order to attack the Niva car, as there was no evidence of a crime in their actions, and another decision ordering that the criminal proceedings be closed as a whole in the absence of evidence of a crime (see paragraphs 76-77 below). The applicants were informed of these decisions in undated letters (see paragraph 78 below). 43. On 25 January 2002 the latter decision of 15 December 2001 was set aside by superior prosecutors and the proceedings resumed (see paragraph 79 below). They were again discontinued owing to the absence of evidence of a crime on 21 March 2002 and then re-opened on 16 August 2002 (see paragraphs 81-82 below). 44. On 24 March 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit 20102 informed the applicants that the investigation into the death of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev had been resumed. 45. By a letter of 17 April 2003 the SRJI, acting on the applicants’ behalf, requested the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 to inform them of the latest development in the case and to grant the status of victim to the first two applicants. 46. In a letter of 24 April 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicants that on the same date, with the consent of garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59, the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the death of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev had been discontinued owing to the absence of evidence of a crime in the attack of 6 August 2000. 47. According to the Government, that decision had been taken in view of the investigating authorities’ finding that the pilots of the MI-24 helicopters had fired at the Niva car, with the result that the applicants’ two relatives had been killed, pursuant to an order that had been given by the command centre and that had thus been binding on them. Accordingly, the pilots’ action did not constitute a criminal offence. The actions of superior officers who had given the order to destroy the Niva vehicle did not constitute a criminal offence either, given that after the warning shots the car had continued moving in the close vicinity of the counter-terrorist operation in a situation of active armed resistance, with the members of illegal armed groups threatening the lives of federal servicemen and other persons. The Government did not mention the names of the pilots who had participated in the attack of 6 August 2000 or those of their superiors who had given the order in question. 48. On 21 May 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the SRJI that the file in the criminal case relating to the death of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev had been transferred to the prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit on 9 February 2001 in order to determine which body was competent to carry out the investigation. The prosecutor’s letter referred to case no. 14/33/0429-00. 49. On 7 July 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 again replied to a request from the SRJI, stating that case no. 14/33/0429-00 instituted in relation to the death of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit on 9 February 2001. 50. In a letter of 8 July 2003 the SRJI requested garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 to declare the first two applicants to be victims in criminal case no. 14/33/0429-00 and to grant them access to the case file. 51. On 10 July 2003 garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 notified the first two applicants in reply to their query that the file of the case concerning the killing of their sons had been sent to the prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (военная прокуратура Объединенной группы войск) in order to verify whether the decision to discontinue the proceedings had been lawful and well-founded. 52. In letters of 10 and 11 August 2003 garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 stated that the first and second applicants respectively could consult the case file in the garrison prosecutor’s office on any working day from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. The letter referred to case file no. 34/32/0189-01D. 53. In a letter of 11 August 2003 garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 also informed the SRJI, in reply to their query, that the criminal proceedings in case no. 34/32/0189-01D had been discontinued on 24 April 2003 in the absence of evidence of a crime in the attack of 6 August 2000, and that therefore there were no grounds in domestic law for declaring the first two applicants to be victims of a crime. The letter added that the first two applicants could have access to the case file on any working day between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. 54. On 9 March 2004 the SRJI applied on the applicants’ behalf to garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59. They stated that on 29 August 2003 the applicants’ legal counsel had attempted to gain access to the documents in case no. 34/32/0189-01D but this had been refused on the ground that the case file had been transmitted to the military prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia (военная прокуратура Республики Ингушетия). In this connection the SRJI requested garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 to notify them of the reasons for the transfer of the case to the military prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia and of any new developments in the investigation, together with the date on which, and the place where, the first two applicants and their lawyers could study the case file. 55. On the same date the SRJI sent a similar letter to the military prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia. 56. On 18 March 2004 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the request of the SRJI to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment for examination. 57. In a letter of 23 March 2004 garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 informed the SRJI that the file in criminal case no. 34/32/0189-01D had been referred to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment for examination and then, after 1 September 2003, to a newly organised military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 04062 (военная прокуратура – войсковая часть 04062) in the Republic of Ingushetia. The letter thus invited the applicants and their representatives to apply to the last mentioned prosecutor’s office. 58. On 2 June 2004 garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 stated that they had replied to all the queries from the SRJI in a letter of 23 March 2004. 59. On 2 July 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment informed the first two applicants and the SRJI that the criminal proceedings in case no. 34/32/0189-01D had been discontinued on 24 April 2003 and that no subsequent investigative measures had been taken. The military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment had studied the case materials and found the aforementioned decision of 24 April 2003 to have been substantiated. The case file had then been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 04062 and the applicants could consult the file there. 60. According to the applicants, all their efforts to gain access to the case file have so far proved unsuccessful. On the latest occasion they attempted to consult the case file in December 2006, but in vain. 61. In October 2004, at the communication stage, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in the criminal case instituted in connection with the attack of 6 August 2000 and the killing of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government refused to submit any documents from the criminal investigation file, stating that, even though the investigation had been discontinued, the disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses. 62. On 23 October 2006 the application was declared admissible. At that stage the Court again invited the Government to submit the investigation file. In February 2007 the Government agreed to reveal the case-file materials, apart from documents “the disclosure of which [might] be harmful to the interests of the security of the Russian Federation and of the participants in the criminal proceedings” and those “which were irrelevant to the investigation”. According to the Government, the submission of the case file at an earlier stage had been inappropriate in view of the need to secure the safety of the participants in the criminal proceedings and to ensure that the information from the preliminary investigation was not disclosed, in accordance with Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure as well as on account of the applicants’ failure to exhaust available domestic remedies. 63. Eventually, the Government produced a number of documents running to a total of 223 pages. They can be summarised as follows. (a) Documents relating to the conduct of the investigation and informing the applicants of its progress 64. By a decision of 6 August 2000 the prosecutor of the Sunzhenskiy District ordered that criminal proceedings under Article 105 § 2 (a) and (f) of the Russian Criminal Code (murder of two or more persons committed by a generally dangerous method) be instituted in connection with an attack by two military helicopters earlier that day which had resulted in the death of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev. 65. By a decision of 6 August 2000 the investigator in charge took up the case. In another decision taken on the same date the investigator in charge granted the status of victim of a crime to Ilyas Akiyev, who had sustained injuries as a result of the attack (see paragraphs 17 and 25 above). 66. In a decision of 8 August 2000 the investigator in charge ordered that the case file be transferred to a military prosecutor’s office, which had jurisdiction to investigate criminal offences committed by military personnel. 67. By a decision of 18 September 2000 an investigator of the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 took up the case, which was given the number 14/33/0429-2000. 68. A decision of 2 October 2000 taken by the investigator in charge and approved by the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 ordered that the term of the preliminary investigation should be extended until 6 November 2000. The decision stated, in particular, that it had been established that on 6 August 2000 at about 9 a.m. the applicants’ two relatives, together with Ilyas Akiyev, Baymurza Aldiyev, Aslambek Imagamayev and Aslambek Dishniyev, had arrived in a Niva car at an area three kilometres to the west of Arshty for grass-cutting. The decision then continued: “At about 11 a.m. two military MI-24 helicopters appeared over the territory of the Chechen Republic to the south of the village of Arshty and started strafing the territory of the Chechen Republic. At about 1.30 p.m. [the applicants’ two relatives and the four other persons mentioned above] got into the [Niva] car and attempted to drive off in the direction of the village of Arshty. At the same time the helicopters ... moved in their direction and opened fire on the car from aircraft machine-guns. [The applicants’ two relatives and the four others mentioned above] left the car and went into hiding in grass nearby. The helicopters went on strafing the vehicle and [the six persons’] hiding-place from missile launchers and aircraft machine-guns. As a result of the attack Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev died.” The report then listed the investigative actions that had been carried out. It stated, in particular, that the scene of the incident had been inspected and craters and metallic pieces of shrapnel with markings had been found, that the corpses of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev had been examined and then sent to the Forensic Examinations Office of the Republic of Ingushetia for a forensic examination, and that Ilyas Akiyev, Baymurza Aldiyev, Aslambek Imagamayev, Aslambek Dishniyev and F., who had been present at the scene of the incident on the date of the attack, had been questioned as witnesses. The decision also prescribed that further investigative measures be taken. It ordered that the identity of the pilots of the two MI-24 helicopters be established and that they be questioned, that the identity of the persons who had ordered the pilots to open fire be established and that those persons be charged with a criminal offence, and that other investigative measures necessary to complete the investigation be carried out. 69. By a decision of 30 October 2000 the investigator in charge of the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 suspended the proceedings in case no. 14/33/0429-2000. The decision restated the facts of the incident and listed the investigative actions that had been conducted, in the same manner as this had been stated in the decision of 2 October 2000. It went on to say the following: “A witness questioned in the course of the investigation, Lieutenant Colonel K., the head of the headquarters of the aircraft division of a [deleted] military unit, confirmed the fact of the attack on the Niva vehicle by helicopters of a [deleted] separate helicopter squadron in the vicinity of the village of Arshty. It follows from Lieutenant Colonel K.’s statement that at present the [deleted] separate helicopter squadron had been transferred from the territory of the Chechen Republic to the place of its permanent station in the city of [deleted]. Taking into account that the alleged perpetrator has not been identified, despite all the measures taken, that all the investigative measures which could have been carried out within the territory of the Chechen Republic have been taken and that the personnel of the [deleted] separate helicopter squadron have left for the place of their permanent station in the town of [deleted] ... the investigation should be carried out [at that place] in the town of [deleted]. The decision thus ordered that the criminal proceedings be suspended, as it was impossible to establish the identity of those responsible, and that the case file be transmitted to the military prosecutor’s office of the Kursk garrison. 70. In a decision of 13 November 2000 the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit quashed the decision of 30 October 2000, stating that the investigation had been incomplete and ordering that the case be sent to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 for additional investigation. 71. By a decision of 30 November 2000 an investigator of the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 took up the case. 72. A decision of 30 December 2000 ordered that the criminal proceedings in case no. 14/33/0429-2000 be stayed. It was, in essence, similar to the decision of 30 October 2000, but stated in addition the following: “A witness questioned in the course of the investigation, [deleted] L., stated that on 6 August 2000 illegal fighters had attacked a [federal air] group in the vicinity of the village of Arshty. A MI-8 helicopter [was hit as a result of the attack] and fell to the west from Arshty...A search group, together with MI-24 helicopters for fire support, was sent to the site of the crash. Thereafter the pilots of the helicopters reported that they had destroyed a Niva vehicle from which illegal fighters had been firing at the helicopters. [Witness L.] was not asked for permission to open fire on the Niva vehicle. As a result of inspection [by federal servicemen] of an area in the vicinity of Arshty, a damaged Niva vehicle, hand grenades, spent cartridges from machine-guns cases and a bloodstained ammunition belt were found”. The decision then concluded that the identity of those responsible could not be established and ordered that the proceedings be suspended. 73. In a decision of 11 March 2001 the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit set aside the decision of 30 December 2000, stating as follows: “An examination of the materials of the criminal case has established that the investigation was becoming procrastinated, that no practical measures aimed at establishing the identity of those responsible were being taken, that special requests were being met, with the result that it is now difficult to assess the actions or omissions of public officials and pilots of the helicopters’ crew, who have not been questioned to date. Until the present time no forensic examination of the dead bodies has been carried out, and therefore the cause of death has not been established and the question of the damage sustained by [those who were declared victims in the proceedings] has not been resolved.” The military prosecutor’s office thus ordered that the decision of 30 December 2000 be quashed, that the proceedings in case no. 14/03/0396-00 instituted in connection with the murder of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev be resumed and that the case file be forwarded to garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 for additional investigation. 74. By a decision of 24 August 2001 an investigator of the garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 took up the case, referring to file number 14/32/0189-01D. 75. A decision of the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit dated 24 October 2001 again quashed the decision of 30 December 2001 and ordered the re-opening of the investigation in case no. 14/21/0396-00 concerning the murder of the applicants’ relatives. It set out the same reasons as the decision of 11 March 2001. 76. In a decision of 15 December 2001 the investigator in charge of garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 ordered that the criminal proceedings in case no. 14/32/0189-01D concerning the murder of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev be closed in part. The decision stated as follows: “On 6 August 2000 at about 9 a.m. a MI-8 helicopter of a [deleted] separate helicopter squadron fell down in the vicinity of the village of Arshty of the Sunzhenskiy District of the Republic of Ingushetia. A helicopter which arrived at the site of the crash for the evacuation of the injured servicemen was also attacked by fire. On the same day at 12 noon, pursuant to an order of Colonel D., the commander of military unit no. 06652, two MI-24 helicopters under the command of Major [the real name is replaced with the nickname “Ivanov”] and Major [the real name is replaced with the nickname “Petrov”] were sent to cover the rescue operation. At about 1 p.m., while patrolling over the area to the west of Arshty, they saw a white [Niva] vehicle and five [rather than six] persons armed with automatic firearms standing nearby, and immediately reported this to the command centre of the United Group Alignment in the village of Khankala of the Chechen Republic. The helicopter[s] [were] at an altitude of 100-150 metres and at a distance of two kilometres from the car. [The pilots] observed the car through a target control system of tenfold magnification. The command centre reported that the identity of those persons would be established. About 15 minutes later the command centre gave an order to destroy the vehicle. Then [the pilots] fired a warning shot from a gun at a spot situated fifty metres away from the car with the purpose of warning everybody to stay where they were until the arrival of ground troops. After the warning shot, the people got into the car and started driving in the direction of the village of Arshty. [The pilots] reported to the command centre and received a repeated order to destroy the vehicle. Following the order, [the pilots] again fired a warning burst from an aircraft machine-gun. The car continued to advance. Thereafter, the third burst for effect was fired from the helicopter under the command of Major [“Ivanov”] after which the car stopped. This was reported to the command centre and to the ground troops... As a result of the attack Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev died. Accordingly, there is nominal evidence of a criminal offence punishable under Article 286 (3) of the Russian Criminal Code [aggravated abuse of power] in the actions of an official who ordered the destruction of the [Niva] vehicle. However, [this] order was justified in the aforementioned circumstances, and therefore the criminal proceedings in the part concerning the criminal offence under Article 286 (3) of the Russian Criminal Code should be terminated [owing to the absence of evidence of a criminal in that official’s actions ...]” 77. Another decision taken by the same investigator on 15 December 2001 ordered that the criminal proceedings instituted concerning the murder of the applicants’ two relatives be discontinued in full. The decision described the circumstances of the attack of 6 August 2000 as they were stated in the aforementioned decision of 15 December 2001 and referred to a report on the inspection of the scene of the incident of 6 August 2000, the reports on the forensic examination of the dead bodies of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev dated 3 September 2001 and witness statements of Ilyas Akiyev, Baymurza Aldiyev, Aslambek Imagamayev and Aslambek Dishniyev, those of the pilots of the MI-24 helicopters, those of Colonel D., the commander of military unit no. 06652, and those of Lieutenant Colonel A., the head of the headquarters of military unit [the number of the unit is deleted] as well as to the other decision of 15 December 2001. It then concluded: “Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence obtained during the investigation, it has been established that on 6 August 2000 at about 1 p.m. in the vicinity of the village of Arshty ... the members of the crew of the MI-24 helicopters destroyed the [Niva] vehicle pursuant to an order which was justified in the circumstances and was binding on them, and therefore their actions did not constitute a criminal offence and they are not liable to criminal responsibility for the damage inflicted by their actions. The criminal case instituted on 6 August 2000 under 105 § 2 (a) and (f) of the Russian Criminal Code shall be terminated ... in the absence of evidence of a crime.” 78. In undated letters the investigating authorities informed the applicants, Ilyas Akiyev, Baymurza Aldiyev, Aslambek Imagamayev and Aslambek Dishniyev that the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the attack of 6 August 2000 and the murder of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev had been suspended on 15 December 2001 owing to the absence of evidence of a crime. The applicants were informed that the decision could be appealed against to the prosecutor of garrison no. 59 or before a court. 79. By a decision of 25 January 2002 the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit set aside the second decision of 15 December 2001 (see paragraph 77 above), stating that the preliminary investigation had been incomplete, that the special instructions had not been complied with, and that all the measures envisaged in the law had not been taken, with the result that it was difficult to assess the actions or omissions of the public officials and the members of the crew of the MI-24 helicopters. The decision thus ordered that the investigation be resumed. 80. On 21 February 2002 an investigator of garrison prosecutor’s office no. 59 took up the case. 81. In letters of 22 March 2002 the investigator in charge informed the second applicant’s family, as well as Ilyas Akiyev, Baymurza Aldiyev, Aslambek Imagamayev and Aslambek Dishniyev, that on 21 March 2002 the proceedings in connection with the death of the applicants’ two relatives had been discontinued in the absence of evidence of a crime, and that this decision could be appealed against to the prosecutor of garrison no. 59 or in court. It is unclear whether the first applicant’s family was informed of the decision of 21 March 2002, as there is no letter to that effect among the documents submitted by the Government. A copy of the decision of 21 March 2002 was not submitted to the Court either. 82. By a decision of 16 August 2002 the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit quashed the decision of 21 March 2002, stating that the investigation had been incomplete, that a superior prosecutor’s instructions had not been complied with and that all the measures envisaged in the law had not been taken to establish the circumstances of the case. 83. By a decision of 24 March 2003 an investigator of the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 took up the case. 84. On the same date the investigator in charge informed the second applicant’s family and the aforementioned four men who had been attacked together with Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev of the decision of 24 March 2003. It is unclear whether the first applicant’s family was informed of the said decision, as there is no letter to that effect among the documents submitted by the Government. 85. A decision of 24 April 2003 taken by the investigator in charge of the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 ordered that the criminal proceedings in case no. 34/32/0189-01 be terminated. The decision described the circumstances of the attack of 6 August 2000 as they had been stated in the decision of 15 December 2001 on complete termination of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 77) and referred to the same documents as those relied on in that decision. It also referred to the witness statement of Mr F., the head of the administration of Arshty at the relevant period, that of Mr M., the head of the flight safety service, and the report of a military expert of 20 March 2002 (see paragraph 102 below). The decision then stated that all the investigative actions aimed at establishing fully and objectively the circumstances of the case had been carried out and that it had been established that at the relevant period a counter-terrorist operation had been underway within the territory of the North Caucasus region, which comprised several republics, including the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia. The residents of the region had been notified that once approached by military vehicles or federal servicemen they were to mark themselves with a piece of white cloth so as to indicate that they were civilians and wait for the arrival of servicemen for an identity check. The decision went on to say that on 6 August 2000 the applicants’ two relatives and the four other men, who had been discovered in the vicinity of Arshty by two MI-24 helicopters under the command of Major “Ivanov” and Major “Petrov”, had failed to comply with the aforementioned requirements and, after a warning shot, had attempted to escape in the Niva car with the result that the MI-24 helicopters had opened fire for effect, entailing the death of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev. The decision then concluded that the pilots had acted pursuant to an order which had been justified in the circumstances and had been binding on them, and therefore their actions did not constitute a criminal offence and they were not responsible for the damage caused. It thus ordered that the criminal proceedings against officers “Ivanov” and “Petrov” be discontinued in the absence of evidence of a crime in their actions. (b) Transcripts of witness interviews 86. There are a number of transcripts of witness interviews among the documents submitted by the Government. In particular, Ilyas Akiyev, Baymurza Aldiyev, Aslambek Imagamayev and Aslambek Dishniyev described the attack of 6 August 2000 as stated in the applicant’s version of events (see paragraphs 12-20) and insisted that they had had no firearms and that it had been obvious that they had been civilians cutting grass and had posed no danger. Aslambek Dishiyev and Aslambek Imagamayev also stated that they had never received any information concerning the rules of conduct of civilians in the zone of a counter-terrorist operation, that it had never been explained how a civilian should mark himself, as no special operations had been carried out in Ingushetia. Baymurza Aldiyev submitted that the head of the administration of Arshty and officers of the Department of the Interior of the Sunzhenskiy District had explained to the local residents that they should avoid the military personnel, not approach and not provoke them. He had heard from his relatives that when federal servicemen opened fire it was necessary to mark oneself as a civilian with a piece of white cloth and wait for the arrival of servicemen for an identity check, but during the attack of 6 August 2000 he had not performed those actions, as they had all been scared and attempted to escape, fearing for their lives. 87. Mr F., the head of the administration of Arshty at the material time, stated that Khalid Khatsiyev and Khalid Akiyev had never been involved in illegal activities, and no criminal proceedings had ever been brought against them. He also submitted that on 6 August 2000 he had visited the scene of the incident with the Niva car, together with local law-enforcement officers. According to Mr F., during the inspection of the scene of the incident pieces of shrapnel and craters from shells and bullets had been found. Mr F. claimed that there had been no firearms or grenades at the scene of the incident, that it had not been attended by servicemen or any persons before the arrival of the law-enforcement officers and that there had been no traces of anyone’s prior presence at the scene. Mr F. also stated as follows: “Since the summer of 2000 a counter-terrorist operation has been underway within the territory of the Chechen Republic. From that time onwards the federal forces have repeatedly conducted special operations in the village of Arshty, during which representatives of official bodies or commanding officers have never explained the rules of conduct in a situation when representatives of the federal forces approach. I, myself, have on several occasions told the residents of the village that if military vehicles, aircraft or armed soldiers appear they should move away to a safe distance. During the year 2000 it was never explained to me that on the approach of aircraft or helicopters it was necessary for people to mark themselves as civilians – with a white cloth or in any other way – to make the servicemen understand that they are civilians. Accordingly, I never gave such explanations to the residents of the village. The officials of the Department of the Interior of the Sunzhenskiy District did not give [any such explanations] either, since there were no military actions on the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia...” 88. According to a statement of a superior officer of the air force obtained on 30 November 2000, in case of necessity the pilot in command of a helicopter might be authorised by the command centre to take, of his own motion, a decision to open fire. 89. Officer L., whose military rank and position are unknown as his personal details have been deleted from the transcript, stated during the questioning of 29 December 2000 that: “...the pilots reported that they had destroyed a Niva vehicle with illegal fighters, who had been firing at the helicopters. The pilots did not request me to give them authorisation to open fire. I suppose that the pilot in command, of his own motion, took a decision to destroy the Niva car, having assessed the battle conditions. After the rescue operation had been completed, the area in the vicinity of the crash was inspected. As a result, a destroyed Niva vehicle was found and several hand-grenades, spent cartridges from light machine-guns and a bloodstained ammunition belt were found nearby.” 90. Lieutenant Colonel A., whose position is unknown as his personal details have been deleted from the transcript, stated during questioning on 6 May 2001 that it was he who, on 6 August 2000, had assigned a mission to a group consisting of the MI-8 helicopter, which had then been hit by the rebel fighters, and two MI-24 helicopters, which had been entrusted with the task of “covering” the MI-8 helicopter. He stated that this group had not been involved in an attack on the Niva car and that he had no information regarding the attack. 91. According to a statement of 23 April 2001 by Mr I., an investigator from the Sunzhenskiy Prosecutor’s Office, he had been summoned to the scene of the incident with the Niva car on 6 August 2000. When he arrived, the destroyed vehicle and the dead bodies had already been removed from the site. Mr I. had inspected the site and found fragments of shrapnel, pieces of broken car headlights and bloodstains. According to him, he had found no grenades, spent cartridges from light machine-guns or an ammunition belt. 92. Mr B., who at the material time had been a driver for the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Ingushetia and had attended the scene of the incident as an attesting witness on 6 August 2000, stated during questioning on 23 April 2001 that he had seen a severely damaged Niva car, two dead bodies lying 12-15 metres away and a lot of craters and pieces of shrapnel. Mr B. submitted that he had seen an F-1 hand grenade lying between the vehicle and one of the corpses. According to him, he had not seen any firearms, spent cartridges from light machine-guns or ammunition belts at the scene of the incident; near the corpses Mr B. had only seen scythes. 93. The pilots of the two Mi-24 helicopters who had attacked the Niva car on 6 August 2000 were questioned on 22 and 23 January 2001 respectively. The real names, surnames and personal details of the pilots have been deleted from the transcripts of their interviews. The pilots in command of the helicopters are indicated with the nicknames “Ivanov” and “Petrov” and an operating pilot who was working in tandem with “Ivanov” is indicated as “Sidorov”. 94. Witness “Ivanov” submitted that he had participated in a rescue operation of 6 August 2000 as pilot in command of the lead helicopter of a pair of MI-24 helicopters. The mission was assigned to them by the commander of military unit no. 06652, who received orders from the command centre of the main federal military base in the village of Khankala, the Chechen Republic. According to “Ivanov”, at about 1 p.m. he noticed a white Niva car and five [rather than six] men standing nearby, all of whom had automatic firearms. He observed the people without using any optical devices from the distance of two kilometres and altitude of 100-150 metres, but insisted that he clearly saw the people had firearms, and that his operating pilot, “Sidorov”, had seen them through a target control system of tenfold magnification. He reported this to the command centre in Khankala and was told that the identity of those five persons would be established. The pilots continued observing, the Niva vehicle remained still and the five men were moving around it. About 15 minutes later “Ivanov” received an order from the command centre in Khankala to destroy the car. According to him, he did not know the name of the official who had given the order. “Ivanov” then sought and obtained confirmation of that order. He fired a warning shot at a spot situated fifty metres away from the car, so as to make the people stand still and wait for the arrival of federal servicemen for an identity check. After the shot, the people got into the car and drove off in the direction of Arshty. “Ivanov” reported this to the command centre in Khankala and received an order to destroy the vehicle. He then fired a warning burst from an aircraft machine-gun, but the car carried on moving. “Ivanov” fired another burst and hit the Niva vehicle, which stopped but nobody got out of it. “Ivanov” then reported the incident to his superiors and left for the place of his station, as he was running out of fuel. “Ivanov” insisted that he did not know the names or military ranks of officials who had given him orders and had had no doubt that the five men belonged to illegal armed groups, as they had been armed. He submitted that “the people in the [Niva] car were supposed to stop after a warning shot; this was known to all the civilian population in the area of the military actions”. 95. Witness “Petrov” stated that he had participated in a rescue operation on 6 August 2000 as wingman of the pair of MI-24 helicopters. He confirmed that he had seen from a distance of two kilometres a white Niva car and five [rather than six] armed men, who after “Ivanov’s” warning shot had got into the car and started driving away, although “everybody knew that a car must stop at a shot or even a helicopter’s flight”. “Petrov” submitted that he had not been authorised to communicate with the command centre but had heard “Ivanov’s” communications and confirmed that “Ivanov” had reported about the car and the people to the command centre and twice received an order to destroy the vehicle. After the second order from the command centre “Ivanov” had given “Petrov” a command to fire at the vehicle, and the latter had strafed the vehicle with a machine-gun of 12.7 mm calibre, whilst “Ivanov” had fired at it with an automatic cannon of 30 mm calibre. The car had stopped but nobody had got out. He then left for the place of his location, as he was running out of fuel. “Petrov” stated that he did not know the names or military ranks of the officials who had communicated with “Ivanov” on 6 August 2000. 96. Witness “Sidorov” stated that on 6 August 2000 he had been an operating pilot on the MI-24 helicopter under the command of “Ivanov”, and that he had observed a Niva car and five [rather than six] men with automatic firearms standing nearby through a target control system of tenfold magnification, as he had reported to “Ivanov”. He then submitted the following: “I clearly heard Major [“Ivanov”] report about the car to [deleted] and to [deleted]. About 10 minutes later an order followed from [deleted] (Khankala) to fire a warning shot. “Ivanov” fired a warning shot from an automatic cannon in front of the car. The people got into the vehicle and drove off in the direction of the village of Arshty and did not stop. All local inhabitants know that it is necessary to stop. [“Ivanov”] reported to [deleted] that the car had not stopped. An order to fire another warning shot followed. [“Ivanov”] made another circle and fired in front of the car with the automatic cannon, but the car did not stop. [“Ivanov”] reported to [deleted] about the situation with the car. An order followed to open fire for effect. [“Ivanov”] opened fire for effect, and the car stopped and I saw two persons get out and run into the forest. [“Ivanov”] reported to [the command centre] that the car had stopped and thereafter he transmitted to [deleted] the information on the car’s location to enable an identity check of the people in the car.” 97. During questioning on 23 January 2001 Colonel D. submitted that at the material time he had been the commander of the [deleted] separate helicopter squadron and that on 6 August 2000 he had heard communications between the MI-24 helicopters and the command centre. He confirmed that the pilots had reported about the Niva vehicle and armed men nearby, that they had been ordered to fire a warning shot, that the pilots had reported that the men had got into the car and attempted to escape and that the pilots had been ordered to destroy the vehicle. 98. Officer M., a military expert, stated during an interview of 20 April 2003 that the actions of the pilots of the MI-24 helicopters, who had attacked the group of people on 6 August 2000, had fully complied with relevant military regulations and the provisions of international law and had been justified in the circumstances. The expert admitted that the pilots could have mistaken agricultural equipment, in particular scythes, for firearms, but noted that the pilots had been absolutely positive that the men whom they had noticed had been armed and that those men had not marked themselves as civilians and had attempted to escape. (c) Documents relating to investigative actions 99. A report on the inspection of the scene of the incident of 6 August 2000 attested the presence of a large number of craters and metallic fragments of irregular shape as well as pieces of broken glass from backlights and a splash shield of a car and a large brown stain resembling blood. A piece of a broken scythe was also found at the scene of the incident. 100. Reports on the examination of the corpses of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev on 6 August 2000 attested the presence of a number of bleeding wounds of irregular shape, going from top downwards. 101. Reports on the medical forensic examination of the corpses of Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev on 3 September 2001, based on the aforementioned two reports of 6 August 2000, confirmed that the corpses had borne bullet wounds, that the death of the two men had been caused by those wounds and that the location of the wounds indicated that they could have been inflicted in the circumstances described in the materials of the criminal case file. 102. An expert commission made up of two military experts, Mr M. (see paragraph 98 above) and Mr K., stated as follows in a report of 20 March 2002: “According to the rules in force in the territory of the Chechen Republic and neighbouring regions, a driver of any transport vehicle is obliged, at the sight of a military helicopter, to stop the vehicle, get out and mark himself. Therefore the crew had the right to destroy the vehicle, which was moving away from the area of an attack without marking itself with a prearranged signal (a white flag, a green signal flare).” The report thus concluded that the pilots had been justified in their actions. 103. The materials submitted by the Government reveal that the investigating authorities also sent a number of queries and requests to various State bodies in the context of the investigation. In particular, on 1 December 2000 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 sent a request to the military prosecutor of the Kursk garrison to establish whether the pilots who had attacked the Niva car had coordinated their actions with their superiors, to establish the identity of those superiors, and to establish who had taken the decision to attack the Niva car. It is unclear whether this request has ever been complied with, as there are no corresponding documents among the materials submitted by the Government. 104. The Government also adduced copies of domestic court decisions taken in unrelated sets of civil proceedings. These included a first-instance judgment and appeal decision awarding compensation for property damage inflicted by servicemen in Ingushetia; a first-instance judgment and appeal decision awarding damages to the first applicant in Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia (nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, judgment of 24 February 2005) in connection with the death of his relatives in Chechnya; and a first-instance judgment and appeal decision refusing compensation for property damage inflicted by servicemen in Ingushetia.

5. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy, Yaroslavl Region. He is serving a prison sentence in Rybinsk. 6. On 24 July 2000 the applicant was arrested in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy on suspicion of organised murder and robbery. He was placed in a temporary detention facility at the police station (ИВС при УВД – IVS) in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy. On 27 July 2000 he was remanded in pre-trial custody. 7. According to the applicant, at about 6 p.m. on 31 July 2000 the applicant was checked out of the IVS in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy; he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back, blindfolded with a canvas bag pulled over his head, and put on the floor of a police minibus. Several police officers and two other detainees were in the same vehicle. As soon as the vehicle drove off the policemen began punching and kicking the applicant to force him to confess to the murder and to make him sign some documents. They hit him on the body and head, twisted his fingers, pulled on the handcuffs and tightened them behind his back. This lasted for at least ten minutes, until they arrived at a place described by the applicant as “somewhere in a forest”. The applicant was taken out of the vehicle and the beatings resumed. The applicant was spread on the ground, strangled with a rope or a belt, then his shoes were taken off and the police officers hit him on the heels with a wooden baton. The applicant claimed that he passed out several times, but when he regained consciousness the beating resumed; he was hit in the head and on the body, kicked on the groin, and strangled again. The applicant claimed that the ill-treatment in the forest lasted between thirty minutes and one hour. After that the policemen put the applicant back into the van and drove on. In the van they continued to beat and intimidate him. The applicant remained blindfolded the whole time. When they arrived at the Regional Department of the Interior in Yaroslavl the bag was removed from his head and he was checked into the Department’s IVS. He was placed in cell no. 23. 8. The applicant remained in the IVS in Yaroslavl until 3 August 2000. He allegedly requested to see a doctor, but this was refused. On the latter date the applicant was brought back to Pereslavl-Zalesskiy and released there. 9. On 4 August 2000 the applicant saw a doctor at Central District Hospital in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy; he reported the ill-treatment and complained of headaches, vertigo, pain in the chest and abdomen and injuries to his feet and wrists. He was diagnosed with a head injury, possible concussion, and bruises on the chest and on the left foot. 10. On an unidentified date between 6 and 9 August 2000 the applicant requested the prosecutor’s office of the Pereslavl-Zalesskiy District to investigate the ill-treatment in criminal proceedings. On 9 August 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police about the alleged ill-treatment. The case was then assigned to the assistant prosecutor who questioned the applicant on 14 August 2000. Both times the applicant spoke in detail about the episode of 31 July 2000. 11. On 14 August 2000 the assistant prosecutor ordered a medical examination by forensic experts to identify the applicant’s injuries, establish their origin and the time of their occurrence. On the same day he was examined by the forensic expert who then requested the applicant’s medical file from the Central District Hospital. 12. On 15 August 2000 the assistant prosecutor questioned the guard who was on duty at the IVS when the applicant was checked out. He submitted that on 31 July 2000 the applicant was checked out at about 5.30 p.m. by two police officers from the special squadron. After the applicant had been signed out they picked up his belongings, handcuffed the applicant and pulled a canvas bag over his head. Two other detainees were checked out at the same time and were taken away in the same vehicle. As far as he could tell, nobody ill-treated the applicant before the group left the IVS. 13. On 16 August 2000 the assistant prosecutor questioned two detainees, M.A. and S.A., who were transferred to Yaroslavl on 31 July 2000 with the applicant, and on 17 August 2000 he questioned one of the convoy policemen. M.A. and S.A. both said that they did not see anything because they were blindfolded, and that they did not hear any violence during the transfer. The convoy officer submitted that he and other policemen had carried three detainees in the minibus and that they had made no stops on the way and had not used any force during the transfer. 14. On the same day the applicant was detained again, and remained in detention pending trial. 15. On 4 September 2000 the chief medical officer of the Central District Hospital replied to the enquiry from the prosecutor’s office, stating that on 4 August 2000 the applicant had been examined by a traumatologist and had been sent for an X-ray, after which he did not come back to the admissions office. He stated that the applicant had indicated that the injuries were caused on 31 July 2000 and were the result of a domestic accident. 16. On the same day the prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the allegation of ill-treatment, on the grounds that they were unsubstantiated. 17. On 15 September 2000, having received the applicant’s medical file from the hospital, the forensic expert drew a report stating, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Patient examination On the right side of the abdomen, covering a total area of 10 cm x 7 cm, barely visible, are healing multiple abrasions ..., an abrasion on the outside of the right wrist 1 cm x 0.3 cm ..., on the same level below the elbow bone there is a healing abrasion 5 cm x – 0.4-0.5 cm ... On the inner left wrist there is an abrasion of 1 cm x 0.5 cm ..., on the outside there is a stripe-like abrasion of 3 cm x 0.5 cm. Reports pain during palpation of the right side of the chest at the level of the seventh and the eighth ribs, on the line between the front and armpit, also reports pain when inhaling sharply or coughing. According [to the applicant], he has pain in the soft tissues of the left foot; no injury [can be seen] there. Sought medical aid at the admissions office of the Central District Hospital on 4 and 5 August 2000, [was examined by] traumatologist. Medical files requested. Data from the medical files On 5 August 2000, [record made by] traumatologist. Complains of pain in the right side of the chest, headaches, nausea and vertigo. Beaten up a week ago. Objective finding: condition of medium gravity ... Abdomen soft, painful when palpated. Reports pain during palpation of the left side of the chest ... Diagnosis: bruise on the left side of the chest, bruise on the left foot. On 4 August 2000. Headaches, vertigo ... Diagnosis: closed craniocerebral injury, concussion, bruise on the chest. On 11 August 2000, [record made by] traumatologist. Complains of pain in the fingers. Diagnosis: bruise on the chest. No other records made. The X-ray of the right side of the chest made on 4 August 2000 reveals no bone fractures. ... The X-ray of hands and wrists in straight projection reveals no bone fractures. The X-ray of heel bones in two projections reveals no bone fractures. Treatment by traumatologist continues ... . Conclusion 1. On 14 August 2000 a medical examination established that Mr Valyayev had healing abrasions on the abdomen and the right and left wrist, caused by blunt hard object(s). The abrasions on the wrists could have been caused by objects like handcuffs. These injuries could have dated back to ten to fifteen days prior to the examination. 3. The clinically established diagnosis of concussion is not supported by objective clinical data, and therefore its gravity is not susceptible to evaluation.” 18. The applicant was not informed of the results of the forensic examination and was not provided with a copy of the report. 19. On 30 October 2000 the applicant received a letter informing him of the decision dispensing with a criminal investigation into the alleged ill-treatment. On 2 November 2000 he lodged a complaint with the prosecutor of Pereslavl-Zalesskiy contesting that decision. 20. On 16 November 2000 the Central District Hospital provided the prosecutor’s office with an extract from the applicant’s medical file. It stated that on 4 August 2000 the applicant complained of pains in the head and chest and was sent for X-ray screening. On 5 August 2000 he was examined by a traumatologist. The chest and head X-ray did not reveal any pathology. He was diagnosed with bruises on the chest and left foot. On 11 August 2000 he was again examined by the traumatologist, with the same diagnosis, and by the neurologist who diagnosed him with a head injury and possible concussion. 21. On 28 November 2000 the applicant requested the prosecutor’s office to send him a copy of the forensic report. 22. On 6 December 2000 the prosecutor’s office issued another decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment. It relied on the statements of the IVS staff and the cellmate denying that force had been applied to the applicant at the IVS. 23. As he had received no reply to his letter of 28 November 2000, on 28 December 2000 the applicant reiterated his request for a copy of the forensic report. 24. On 30 January 2001 the applicant’s cellmate at the IVS in Yaroslavl, S., wrote to the prosecutor’s office of Pereslavl-Zalesskiy confirming the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. He contended that on 31 July 2000 at about 9 p.m. the applicant was placed in cell no. 23; that he was bleeding and bruised, his clothes were torn and bloodstained and he was unable to move around the cell without help. He had confirmed that the applicant had apparently been tortured by the special squadron police during his transfer from Pereslavl-Zalesskiy and stated that no medical help was provided to the applicant at the detention facility. 25. On an unspecified date the same assistant prosecutor requested a further report on the applicant. On 14 February 2001 an expert drew up the report. The applicant himself was not present, and the expert studied only a one-page extract of the applicant’s medical file issued on 16 November 2000. He concluded that it contained insufficient information and that, in the absence of the original medical documents, he could not establish whether the applicant had suffered any injuries. 26. On the same day the prosecutor’s office refused again to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment, referring to the statements of S.A. and M.A. and to the fact that the expert had been unable to establish any injuries in the report of 14 February 2001. 27. On 23 February 2001, following complaints by the applicant, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Yaroslavl Region quashed the decision of 14 February 2001 and ordered the inquiry to be continued. She gave detailed instructions to the prosecutor’s office of Pereslavl-Zalesskiy to carry out a number of steps to verify the allegations, including questioning of the medical personnel who examined the applicant on 4 and 11 August 2000, obtaining the original medical records, establishing the identity of the staff members who had made or required the extracts of the medical files, and questioning IVS staff and cellmates about the applicant’s injuries. 28. On 23 April 2001 the prosecutor’s office of Pereslavl-Zalesskiy took a new decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment. The decision essentially reiterated the preceding ones and concluded that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated. The applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about the refusal to hold an investigation and requested access to the file. 29. On 20 July 2001 S.A. wrote to the applicant to apologise for the false statement he had made to the office of the prosecutor conducting the ill-treatment inquiry. He explained that although he had remembered the “monstrous” beatings the applicant was subjected to during the transfer, he felt that telling about it would put him at risk. 30. On 23 July 2001 the Yaroslavl Regional Court held a hearing in the applicant’s criminal case and gave judgment. The applicant was found guilty of burglary and aggravated murder and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. During the trial the applicant complained of ill-treatment, and several witnesses testified that he been injured. The court did not examine the issue further. 31. Following requests by the applicant, on 5 December 2001 and 6 February 2002 the prosecutor’s office refused to grant him access to the inquiry file. The applicant challenged the refusal before the Pereslavl District Court. On 14 August 2002 the court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the prosecutor’s office to give the applicant access to the case file. Sixty-five pages of copies of the documents were sent to the applicant on 10 November 2002. They did not include the expert report of 15 September 2000. 32. On an unidentified date the applicant challenged the decision of 23 April 2001 refusing the investigation of his ill-treatment before the Pereslavl District Court. Among other arguments he referred to the forensic examination that he underwent on 14 August 2000 and requested that the results be included in the case file. On 28 July 2003 the court returned his complaint, stating that it could not examine the matter while a similar complaint was under examination by the prosecutor’s office. The applicant appealed. 33. On 30 September 2003 the Deputy President of the Yaroslavl Regional Court replied to the applicant that the Pereslavl District Court had never received the applicant’s complaint challenging the decision of 23 April 2001, and that in any event the latter was not amenable to judicial review because the applicant’s arguments had already been examined in substance in the criminal proceedings against the applicant which had ended in his conviction. 34. Despite the above letter, the applicant’s complaint was subsequently accepted for examination by the Pereslavl District Court, and the applicant requested to attend the hearing. He also requested that his lawyer be informed about the date of the court hearing. The applicant claims that neither he nor his lawyer were notified of when the hearing was scheduled. 35. On 9 July 2004 the court examined the complaint. Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present, but the public prosecutor took part in the hearing. The court upheld the decision of 23 April 2001 dispensing with a criminal investigation. The applicant appealed. 36. On 17 December 2004 the Yaroslavl Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 9 July 2004, finding the allegations of ill-treatment unsubstantiated and the prosecutor’s decision well-founded. It appears that neither the applicant nor his lawyer were present at the hearing, while the prosecutor was. 37. On 25 June 2009 the Court gave notice of this application to the respondent Government. 38. On 21 August 2009 the Prosecutor of the Yaroslavl Region submitted a request to the Yaroslavl Regional Court to have the decisions of 9 July 2004 and 17 December 2004 quashed in supervisory-review proceedings. The ground for the request was the absence of the applicant from the proceedings at both levels of jurisdiction. On 2 September 2009 that request was granted, and the applicant’s complaint was remitted for fresh examination by the district court. 39. On 16 September 2009 the Yaroslavl Department of the Interior issued a report on the internal inquiry relating to the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. Having referred to the previous decisions by the prosecutor’s office and the courts, it stated that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated. 40. On 17 September 2009 the Pereslavl District Court scheduled a hearing on 23 September 2009 and ordered that the applicant be brought from the correctional facility to take part in the proceedings. The applicant requested three times that the hearing be postponed. The requests were granted, the first time to allow him time for preparation, the second time following the replacement of his counsel and the third time to allow him more time to read the file. The hearing was postponed until 27 October 2009, then until 10 November 2009, and finally until 20 November 2009. 41. On the latter date the court began examining the applicant’s claim. The applicant was present at the hearing and made oral submissions. The hearing continued until 30 November 2009, when the court held a judgment dismissing the claims. The applicant appealed. 42. On 2 April 2010 the Yaroslavl Regional Court granted the applicant’s appeal, reversed the judgment of 30 November 2009 and remitted the case for fresh examination by the district court. 43. On 2 June 2010 the district court examined the applicant’s claims in fresh proceedings and granted them in full. It noted that the prosecutor’s office had not taken all the measures necessary to enable a reasoned, lawful and well-grounded decision, in particular that it had failed to take into account the results of the forensic examination that took place on 14 August 2000. It therefore declared the refusal to investigate the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in criminal proceedings unlawful and ordered the prosecutor’s office to rectify the omissions. 44. On 23 July 2010 the Yaroslavl Regional Court upheld the judgment of 2 June 2010. 45. The parties did not inform the Court what follow-up measures had been taken by the prosecutor’s office, if any.

4. The applicants were born in 1948 and 1938 respectively and live in the town of Yaroslavl. 5. The applicants are co-owners of a house situated near a local police and fire station. 6. They sued the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”, Министерство внутренних дел РФ) for damages and new housing, alleging that the building and maintenance works which had been carried out by the station seriously damaged a local drainage system and lead to systematic seasonal flooding of their house. 7. By judgment of 5 December 2000 the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the town of Yaroslavl partly granted their claims and ordered the Ministry to provide the families of the first and second applicant with housing measuring at least 30.6 and 35.56 square metres respectively and consisting of at least two rooms. 8. The court also ordered the Ministry to pay the applicants 3,353 Russian roubles (“RUR”) and RUR 26,165 respectively in damages. 9. The judgment of 5 December 2000 was upheld by the Yaroslavl Regional Court on appeal on 12 March 2001. 10. On 11 July 2001 the applicants instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 5 December 2000, as upheld on 12 March 2001. 11. By money transfers of 18 July 2001 and 3 September 2002 the second applicant received RUR 431.60 and RUR 25,733.40. 12. By money transfer of 4 September 2002 the first applicant received RUR 3,353. 13. Insofar as the judgment ordered the Ministry to grant the applicants free housing, on 28 August 2002 the housing committee of the regional branch of the Ministry of Interior, a body in charge of distribution of flats in residences built at the expense of the Ministry, decided to provide the applicants with two flats, measuring 55.6 and 53.1 square metres respectively. 14. On 3 October 2002, once the construction of the block of flats had been finalised, both applicants received permission to move in.

10. The applicants are all Turkish nationals. The Özkanlı family lived in Gözeler and the remainder of the applicants lived in Cevizlidere until the alleged incidents that gave rise to the applications. The applicants Mahmut Özkanlı, Beze Keser and Seydo Cila died on 17 May 1999, 12 December 1999 and 25 March 2005 respectively and their heirs pursued their applications. On 1 December 2002, another applicant, Zeliha Keser, died but her heirs have not expressed interest in pursuing her application. 11. The facts of the case are in dispute between the parties and may be summarised as follows. 12. Until 20 September 1994 the Özkanlı family lived in Gözeler, a village of Ovacık district in Tunceli province. The rest of the applicants lived in Cevizlidere village of the same district until 4 October 1994. 13. Since the 1980s security forces have continually intimidated the applicants, as the villagers were suspected of providing logistic support to terrorists. Seventeen villages in Ovacık, including the applicants’ villages, were considered to be suppliers of food to terrorists in the region. The villagers’ food was as a result rationed by the Gendarme Command of the district. The villages were under military control and access thereto was subject to prior permission from the Gendarme Station in the region. 14. The security forces came down to Gözeler on 20 September 1994 and to Cevizlidere on 4 October 1994. In each of the villages, they assembled the inhabitants in the village square and instructed them to leave the villages immediately. They also informed the inhabitants that their houses would be set on fire. The applicants left their villages, taking their animals and as many belongings as they could carry. The security forces subsequently set Cevizlidere on fire. Gözeler was not burned down. 15. On an unspecified date shortly after the evacuation of Gözeler, Mahmut Özkanlı filed a petition with the Ovacık District Governor’s office complaining that he and his family had been forced to leave their village. The authorities have not acted upon the petition and Mr Özkanlı has not received any response. 16. On 5 October 1994, the applicants from Cevizlidere lodged petitions with the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Ovacık, complaining of intimidation by the State security forces and the burning down of their houses. As the case concerned an investigation into alleged acts of the security forces, the prosecutor referred the petitions to the Ovacık District Governor’s Office in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu). 17. The applicants first moved to Ziyaret village in Ovacık, where the Government provided them with public housing earmarked for disaster relief. After a while, the applicants sold their animals and belongings in order to provide for their livelihood. Finally, they moved out to live with their relatives in various cities in Turkey. 18. On 25 October 1995, the Ovacık District Governor replied to the applicants from Cevizlidere, by individual letters. Relying on a letter from the Ovacık Gendarmerie Commander dated 1 November 1994, the District Governor stated that no houses had been burned down by the security forces and that a prosecution had not been initiated since the perpetrators could not be identified. As the applicants had left their villages by then, the District Governor’s letters were served on the village mayor (muhtar) of Cevizlidere on 15 February 1996. 19. In early October 1993, members of the terrorist organisation PKK started to come down to the villages in Ovacık. They engaged in propaganda for the PKK and kidnapped young men to recruit them forcibly. 20. However, after a while these young men fled the organisation. The PKK also began to threaten the villagers who refused to provide food and supplies. As a result, most of the inhabitants left their villages as they feared the PKK’s retaliation. 21. In October 1994, PKK militants disguised as security forces attacked Cevizlidere and a neighbouring village, Işıkvuran, and burned down the houses and destroyed the harvest. They plundered everything in the houses. 22. Pressurised by the terrorists, sixty-three villagers from Cevizlidere, including the applicants, lodged complaints with the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Ovacık, alleging that their houses had been burned down by the security forces carrying out military operations in the area. As the complaints were against public officers, the prosecutor took a decision of non-jurisdiction pursuant to relevant laws and referred the case to the Ovacık Administrative Council of the Ovacık District Governor’s Office. 23. The Council appointed an investigator in order to question the villagers about their allegations. However, since Cevizlidere had been completely abandoned on the days following the terrorist attacks, the investigator was unable to find the villagers or take their statements. He therefore took statements from the inhabitants of neighbouring villages. One of the witnesses was Mr Rahmi Kızılçayır, the village mayor of Çat village in Ovacık, and stated on 17 October 1994: “I am the village mayor of Çat village. (...) At the beginning of October 1994 the houses in our village were burnt down by the PKK for punishment reasons. Afterwards, they went around saying that the houses had been burnt down by security forces. In burning down our houses and making our lives miserable, the terrorists had one aim only: They were scared of the security forces who had arrived in Ovacık in large numbers. They sought the villagers’ help, asking for food and trying to convince them to join the PKK. As they found no support from the villagers, they burned down the houses saying ‘You wanted to leave this place anyway, so now you can go’. I talked about this event in public, in the market place of Ovacık and in front of the TV cameras. And now I am being harassed by the supporters of PKK. (...)” 24. Mr Maksut Şanlı from Gözeler stated, inter alia: “At the beginning of October the TKP/TIKKO and PKK members began to burn down the villages in the district in retaliation for the villagers’ refusal to supply help, information and fighters to the organisation and, furious with the villagers’ attempts to flee the villages (...), they burned down the houses of some villagers. They sent their supporters to the city centre to spread the rumour about the security forces being the perpetrators of the incidents.” 25. Mr Mahmut Atlı from the Işıkvuran village stated, inter alia: “What happened in our village happened in the neighbouring villages as well. If the PKK burned down those villages, then they probably burned down ours as well. It was [done by] a group of people wearing uniforms and holding guns. The terrorists wear uniforms too. This is the reason why we left our village.” 26. In view of these statements, the investigator concluded that the houses in Cevizlidere had been burned down by terrorists and not by the security forces. Accordingly, on 23 June 1995 the Ovacık Administrative Council decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the security forces. 1. The documents submitted by the applicants a) A copy of the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s decision of non-jurisdiction, dated 9 December 1994 27. Upon the petitions of sixty-three Cevizlidere inhabitants, the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction on 9 December 1994 and transferred the investigation file to the Ovacık District Governor’s Office pursuant to the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants. b) A copy of the decision regarding the service on the village mayor of Cevizlidere in lieu of the applicants 28. On 15 February 1996, District Governor’s office delivered its response of 25 October 1995 to the village mayor in Cevizlidere, as the applicants had left their village by then. c) Copies of letters dated 25 October 1995, sent by the Ovacık District Governor’s Office to the applicants from Cevizlidere 29. These letters, in identical language, informed the applicants from Cevizlidere that the investigations which had started upon their petitions would be discontinued as no evidence had been provided and that the alleged perpetrators could not have been identified. d) The People’s Republican Party’s Tunceli Report of October 1996 30. This report gave an account of the visit made to Ovacık, Pertek and Hozat districts of Tunceli by four members of parliament representing the People’s Republican Party (CHP), from 22 to 24 October 1996. The report noted that starting from October 1994 a massive wave of forced evacuations had been launched. According to the report, this resulted in the evacuation of 184 out of 420 villages, 652 out of 1,179 hamlets in Tunceli. It was argued that the situation in Ovacık was particularly grave as 51 out of a total of 62 villages had been forcibly evacuated. The temporary housing provided by the Government was inadequate. It was therefore recommended that the “return to village” projects be accelerated and that the State attend accommodation and socioeconomic needs of the displaced persons. e) Mazlum-Der’s Tunceli Report of September 1996 31. This report reflected the findings of a representative of Mazlum-Der, a human rights association in Turkey, during his visit in Tunceli from 11 to 13 September 1996. The report indicated that by 1995, a total of 168 Tunceli villages had been evacuated, 51 of them being in Ovacık. f) The report of 14 January 1998 of the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Commission of Inquiry on the measures to be taken to address the problems of the persons displaced following the evacuation of settlement units in east and south-east Anatolia 32. This report was prepared by a Commission of Inquiry composed of ten members of parliament. According to the report, in 1993 and 1994 the inhabitants of 905 villages and 2,923 hamlets were evicted and forced to move to other regions of the country (p.13). The number of people evicted from 90 villages and 225 hamlets in the province of Diyarbakır, where the Suçıktı village is located, was estimated to be around 50,371 (p.12). 33. The report included a statement by Mr Doğan Hatipoğlu, a former governor of Diyarbakır. Mr Hatipoğlu explained that, during his office, occasional village evacuations by military authorities were brought to his attention. He stated that – although very rarely – he had received complaints about village burnings. According to Mr Hatipoğlu, it was inconceivable to assert that all the villages were vacated due to PKK coercion. He alleged that the Government had failed to take the necessary measures for a healthy resettlement of displaced persons (p.13). 34. The report also referred to the “Human Rights Report – Turkey”, prepared and submitted to the Commission of Inquiry in 1995 by Mr Yavuz Önen, the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation. This latter report dedicated a chapter to immigrants and evacuated villages. It argued that, in 1995, the practice of evacuation of villages and hamlets was widespread. Many houses in villages were either destroyed or made uninhabitable. People were forced to emigrate from the region and pressure was exerted on the inhabitants until they left their villages. In early 1995 there was practically no village or hamlet inhabited except those whose inhabitants agreed to become village guards (p.19). 35. The report of the Commission of Inquiry also referred to the speech delivered at the Turkish Grand National Assembly by Mr Salih Yıldırım, a deputy from Şırnak, on 3 June 1997 on the question of evacuated villages. Mr Yıldırım stated, inter alia, that the villages were evacuated either by the PKK, in order to intimidate those who opposed it, by the authorities since they were unable to protect the villages, or because the inhabitants of those villages refused to become village guards or were suspected of having aided the PKK (p. 20). 36. In conclusion, it was recommended in the report that the inhabitants of the settlement units should be re-housed in the provinces, districts or central villages, rather than hamlets, close to the area where they used to live and that necessary economic measures should be taken with a view to providing employment to the inhabitants of the region, priority being given to the immigrants. g) Petition dated May 1995, filed with the Prime Minister’s Office by the mayors of some of the villages in the districts of Hozat, Ovacık and Pertek in the province of Tunceli 37. This petition contained the collective complaints of the mayors about the village destruction and forced evictions carried out by the State security forces. The mayors alleged that security forces applied an extensive embargo on foodstuffs and essential commodities in the region. They asked the Prime Minister to take necessary measures to allow the villagers to return to their homes and land. They also requested that the damage they had suffered as a result of the destruction of property and the forced displacement be compensated and that some form of economic aid be provided. h) A questionnaire filled out by Mahmut Özkanlı 38. Mahmut Özkanlı filled out a questionnaire –seemingly prepared by his lawyer– where he stated that his family had emigrated upon the security forces’ pressure. He indicated that the security forces had not tortured or ill‑treated them in any way but had threatened to set their house on fire and required them to vacate their house. Mr Özkanlı explained that he had sold his livestock and had left for Istanbul but later returned to Ovacık. 2. The documents submitted by the Government a) Copies of the collective complaints filed by sixty-three petitioners, including the applicants from Cevizlidere, dated 11 October 1994 39. The applicants from Cevizlidere, together with fellow villagers, filed complaints with the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Ovacık. They stated that the security forces required them to vacate their houses right away. They further complained that they had been able to save very few domestic items before the security forces burned down their houses and harvest. b) Witness statement of Mahmut Atlı dated 17 October 1994 40. The witness was a resident of the Işıkvuran village of Ovacık. According to him, on 2 October 1993 a group of PKK militants raided their village to pressurise the villagers into joining the organisation and providing food and supplies. That same day the militants abducted six young men in order to recruit them to the organisation. Two or three days later those young men fled from the PKK and eventually joined the Turkish army. To retaliate, the PKK militants in gendarme uniforms came back to Işıkvuran village on 6 October 1994 and burned down some of the houses. The witness added that similar incidents had taken place in most of the neighbouring villages in Ovacık. c) Witness statement of Maksut Şanlı dated 17 October 1994 41. The witness, who is a resident of Gözeler, stated that since early October 1994, the TKP/TIKKO and the PKK had forced the Ovacık inhabitants to provide food and supplies, to shut down their businesses in the town bazaar and to organize separatist demonstrations. He added that upon the inhabitants’ non-compliance with those requirements, the terrorists had begun to burn down villages. d) Witness statement of Rahmi Kızılçayır dated 17 October 1994 42. At the time of his statement, the witness was the village mayor of Çat village in Ovacık. Mr Kızılçayır stated, in particular, that in early October 1994 the PKK had burnt down the houses in his village to punish them for their refusal to join the organisation and to provide logistic support. He added that it was the terrorists who had forced them out of their villages. e) A copy of the investigation report dated 5 June 1995 43. The report was prepared by a chief police officer, appointed by the Ovacık District Governor’s Office, upon the complaints of sixty-three villagers of Cevizlidere. Following his investigation, the officer concluded that the village had been burned down by PKK terrorists disguised in gendarme uniforms. The report also stated that the perpetrators had forced the villagers into blaming the security forces for the incident. f) Decision of the Council on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (“CPCS”) dated 23 June 1995 44. As the alleged perpetrators could not be identified and in light of the investigation report of 5 June 1995, the CPCS in Ovacık decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against any member of the security forces. g) Copies of twenty-eight decisions of non-jurisdiction issued by the Ovacık Public Prosecutor concerning the terrorist incidents between 1993 and 1996. 45. These decisions were taken by the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding various terrorist atrocities that the Ovacık inhabitants had reported. It appears that in each of these cases, the Ovacık prosecutor delivered a decision of non-jurisdiction in accordance with relevant laws and transferred the files to the prosecutor with jurisdiction. The incidents complained of included, among others, the raid of Işıkvuran village by the PKK and abduction of six young men in order to forcibly recruit them. Later, another petition informed the prosecutor that those young men had escaped, and to retaliate, the PKK had raided Işıkvuran once again and burned down the family homes of the escapees. 46. In another case, the prosecutor was informed that a group of PKK militants had burned down the houses of Cemal Cingöz and Şükrü Cingöz, two villagers from Ağaçpınar village of Ovacık, and had eventually murdered both men. The petitioners claimed that such terrorist attacks had been perpetrated in order to punish the families of those who had escaped from the organisation. 47. In yet another case, the villagers reported that the PKK had burned down schools in three Ovacık villages, namely, Tatusağı, Çakmaklı and Arel. 48. In all other decisions, the prosecutor described similar reported incidents of vandalism, sabotage, burning, abduction and killing by the PKK to punish the villagers in Ovacık for their refusal to join the organisation or to provide food and supplies. h) Decision of non-jurisdiction issued by the Military Public Prosecutor attached to the Gendarmerie General Command in Ankara 49. In a decision of 29 July 1997, the Military Public Prosecutor in Ankara issued a decision of non-jurisdiction upon criminal complaints about disappearances and killings allegedly perpetrated by the security forces in Tunceli. Referring to a letter by the State-of-Emergency Regional Governor, the prosecutor noted that gendarme forces, along with commandos from the Bolu Brigade, had carried out military operations between 29 September and 31 October 1994 in the vicinities of Ovacık and Hozat. However, the prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence to conclude that the security forces had perpetrated the alleged crimes. i) Administrative Court rulings dated 8 May 1998, awarding compensation to villagers whose village had been destroyed by terrorists 50. The Government supplied copies of forty decisions of the Administrative Court in Malatya awarding compensation to the inhabitants of Doludere village in Bingöl, subject to emergency rule at the time. It was indicated in the decisions that the claimants’ houses and belongings had been destroyed by the PKK. Relying on the doctrine of “social risk”, the Administrative Court found the Government liable for failing to foresee and prevent those terrorist attacks and awarded compensation to the claimants. j) Letter from Ovacık District Governor to the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s Office 51. In response to an earlier request for information by the prosecutor, the District Governor explained that there has never occurred any destruction of property or forced evacuation by military authorities in Gözeler village, which was subject to their military jurisdiction. The letter further clarified that Gözeler had been uninterruptedly inhabited and that they had not received any complaint from Gözeler inhabitants about incidents of destruction or evacuation. k) A copy of the relevant page of the birth register regarding Zeliha Keser 52. The copy shows that Ms Zeliha Keser, one of the applicants, died on 1 December 2002. l) A copy of the official record dated 28 July 2003 regarding the habitation in Cevizlidere 53. On 24 July 2003, gendarme officers visited Cevizlidere to examine habitation conditions there. They observed that one of the applicants, Cemal Cila and his family, lived there permanently. The officers also established that five of the applicants, namely Cansa Özgül, Diyap Çılgın, Munzur Al, Saycan Keskin, Kerem Keser and Emirali Keskin and their families, temporarily resided in Cevizlidere. 54. The record, signed by the mentioned applicants to approve of its content, indicated that Cevizlidere was open to resettlement and there was no hindrance for the applicants to return thereto. It was also indicated that everybody could easily go in and out of the village by informing the gendarme station. m) Witness statements of six of the applicants, dated 30 July 2003 55. On 30 July 2003, six of the applicants from Cevizlidere, namely, Diyap Çılgın, Saycan Keskin, Kerem Keser, Cansa Özgül, Cemal Cila and Munzur Al gave witness statements to security forces regarding Mahmut Keser’s whereabouts at the time of the alleged incidents. They maintained in their concordant statements that long before the 1994 incidents Mahmut Keser had left Cevizlidere for Germany. The witnesses also stated that Mahmut Keser’s mother and sister had left the village in 1994 due to terrorist incidents and moved to Ovacık. They explained that there was no hindrance for the villagers to go in and out of the village and to cultivate their lands. n) A copy of the official record regarding some of the applicants’ refusal of Government aid 56. This record was provided by security authorities to demonstrate that on 11 August 2003, six of the applicants from Cevizlidere, namely, Diyap Çılgın, Saycan Keskin, Kerem Keser, Cansa Özgül, Cemal Cila and Munzur Al, were offered construction material and monetary aid within the framework of the Government’s “Return to the Villages and Rehabilitation Project”. According to the record, the applicants refused to accept the aid and declined to put their refusal into writing by signing the record. o) Statement of Kali Türemez, dated 28 August 2003 57. The witness is a resident of Gözeler. He stated that the Gözeler inhabitants, including the Özkanlı family, had left Gözeler in 1994 upon the mounting pressure exerted by the PKK, not by the security forces. The witness added that following Mahmut Özkanlı’s death, his heirs, Hüri Özkanlı and her children, had returned to their family house in Gözeler, repaired it and resumed their residence. p) Statement of Ali Kadir Türemez, dated 29 August 2003 58. The witness is a resident of Gözeler. He gave a statement which confirmed in all respects that of Kali Türemez. r) Statement of Ali Çakmaz, dated 1 September 2003 59. The witness is a resident of Havuzlu village in Ovacık. He stated that he was familiar with the Özkanlı family and the incidents which had occurred in Gözeler as his village had previously been connected to Gözeler. He explained that the inhabitants of Gözeler, including Mahmut Özkanlı and his family, had left their village as a result of terrorist acts of the PKK. He further stated that Mahmut Özkanlı’s heirs had returned to their family home in Gözeler.

4. The applicants were born in 1983, 1946 and 1936 respectively. The first and the third applicant live in Diyarbakır and the second applicant resides in Manisa. The application concerns the wounding of the first applicant, who was eleven years old at the time, and the death of the second and third applicants' sons, Çetin Alican and İlhami Alican, who were fourteen and thirteen years old respectively, as a result of the explosion of an RPG-7 (anti-tank grenade launcher) grenade outside the applicants' village, Kıyıdüzü, in Van. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. 6. On 22 April 1994 Kamuran Alican, Çetin Alican and Ilhami Alican took their animals out to graze. When the animals returned to the village without the children, the villagers launched a search party and informed the military nearby; the Van 6th Armoured Brigade Barracks. A search was also unsuccessfully conducted within the military confines. The next day, the dead bodies of Çetin Alican and Ilhami Alican were found in a wheat field between the army barracks and Nemrut Mountain. The first applicant, who had injuries to his eyes and legs, was found a few hundred metres away. He was immediately taken to Tatvan State Hospital for treatment. As a result of the explosion, the first applicant suffered partial loss of the sight of one eye and the total loss of sight in the other. 7. According to the first applicant's testimony, given to a prosecutor on 10 June 1994, the children were grazing their sheep in the field when they found an object with an iron head which looked like a bullet. The first applicant left the other two children to find water while they were trying to hit the iron head with pieces of metal. At that moment the bullet exploded. 8. On 23 April 1994 the Tatvan public prosecutor instigated an investigation into the incident. The prosecutor noted that there were numerous trenches around the area for tank and gun practice. The remains of the ammunition at the scene were secured. Reports and sketches were drafted and a post‑mortem examination was conducted on the deceased. The cause of death was attributed to hemorrhagic shock and the doctor deemed it unnecessary to conduct a classic autopsy of the deceased. 9. On 4 May 1994 the Tatvan public prosecutor decided that he lacked jurisdiction to investigate the incident and forwarded his decision to the military prosecutor's office at the Van 21st gendarmerie border brigade commandership (“the military prosecutor”). 10. The military prosecutor instigated an investigation into the incident. In particular, he requested the official records regarding the use of grenade launchers by the military during training, and medical reports regarding the health of the first applicant. 11. In the course of the investigation evidence was gathered from the first applicant, the third applicant, the head of the village, Mr M. M. Alican, a fellow villager, the soldiers on patrol duty on the day of the incident and a higher-ranking military official. 12. On 6 May 1997 the military prosecutor gave a decision that there was no need to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no fault or negligence attributable to anyone except Kamuran Alican, Çetin Alican and İlhami Alican. In his decision, the prosecutor noted that the children, while they were grazing their animals, had collected, near the trenches, a grenade from an RPG-7 grenade launcher and parts of a rocket, and that the incident had occurred while they were trying to explode them. He further noted that the incident had occurred 2,200 metres away from the Armoured Brigade Barracks where three fields met and that it was not a military area. In this connection, the prosecutor held that, according to the official military records, no unexploded grenades or rockets had been found after military training exercises, that the origin of these artefacts could not be established and that, even assuming that they were launched from the military training field, their range made it impossible for them to have landed 2,200 metres away from it. 13. The decision of the military prosecutor was served on 29 May 1997 on Ahmet Alican, on 7 July 1997 on Kamuran Alican and on 19 July 1997 on Ramazan Alican. The applicants did not object to the military prosecutor's decision. 14. On 20 February and 20 May 1995 the applicants made applications to the Ministry of the Interior for compensation on account of the injury sustained by the first applicant and the death of the other applicants' sons. They received no positive reply. 15. On 4 May 1995 the first and the second applicants, and on 17 April 1995 the third applicant, brought actions for compensation against the Ministry before the Van Administrative Court. They were represented by the same lawyers. In their petitions, the applicants claimed that Kamuran Alican had been injured and Çetin Alican and Ilhami Alican had died as a result of a mine which had been placed there by the gendarmerie police station. The first applicant requested the court to award 1,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) for pecuniary damage and TRL 100,000,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. The second and the third applicant each requested TRL 500,000,000 for loss of income on account of the death of their sons. 16. On 26 January 1998 the Van Administrative Court, basing its decision on the doctrine of “social risk”, awarded the applicant's claim in full. Although the amount determined by experts for pecuniary damage was significantly higher, the court was bound by the amount requested by the applicant. 17. The Ministry appealed. 18. On 8 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to determine which administrative entity, that is either the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Defence, had responsibility for compensating the applicant. 19. On 28 September 2001 the Van Administrative Court, deciding that the Ministry of the Interior had responsibility, gave its judgment. The court held as follows: “ ... According to the report of the public prosecutor, the incident took place 1,500 metres from the Van 6th Armoured Brigade Barracks. (According to the sketch plan the distance is 2,200 metres.) It was a grenade for a rocket launcher called RPG-7, which exploded. The explosion occurred in an area where rockets are launched. Yet the origin of the grenade which caused the explosion is unknown. According to the inventory of the Turkish Military Forces, this type of weapon (RPG-7) is used by the military. However, it was included in the inventory of the 6th Armoured Brigade after the date of the incident in question. The maximum shooting range of the RPG-7 is 700 metres. The results of an investigation into the military units deployed in the region prior to the incident revealed that only one of these units had engaged in shooting practice. According to the records of that unit they had left no unexploded grenades. The rocket launcher in question is frequently used by members of the PKK terrorist organisation. Furthermore, the incident took place 1,500 metres from the barracks, in an area, which according to the attached map, has been declared to be a 2nd degree military security zone. Although it is established that the explosion occurred in the vicinity of the rocket launching zone, since the distance from the barracks was 1,500-2,200 metres it cannot be accepted that the unexploded grenade which caused the explosion was one used during a military unit's training. The investigation conducted by the military prosecutor at the 21st Gendarmerie Division Commander's office resulted in the same conclusion. Moreover, the conditions in the region are particular: the weapon in question is frequently used and hidden by the terrorist organisation. The grenade might have been left by terrorists who attacked the barracks. It should therefore be concluded that the damage in the present case was not caused by the activities of military forces but rather by terrorist activities. Nevertheless, taking into account the fact that a state of emergency was in force in the region at the time and the extraordinary nature of the damage, compensation should be awarded by the administration in accordance with the theory of “social risk”. ... The plaintiff should therefore be paid his claim in full, TRL 1,000,000,000[1] for pecuniary damage... although according to the expert reports, pecuniary damage in the present case could amount to TRL 19,237,229,000[2]. ... As regards non-pecuniary damage, the plaintiff should be awarded TRL 100,000,000[3]. 20. The Ministry appealed. 21. On 23 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. 22. On 19 March 1998 the Van Administrative Court, basing its decision on the doctrine of “social risk”, awarded the applicant a certain amount of compensation. 23. The Ministry appealed. 24. On 22 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to determine which administrative entity, that is either the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Defence, had responsibility for compensating the applicant. 25. On 16 November 1999 the Van Administrative Court, basing its decision on the doctrine of “social risk”, on the same ground as above, awarded the second applicant TRL 366,954,367[4] in respect of pecuniary damage together with legal interest running from the date of the incident, 23 April 1994. 26. The Ministry appealed. 27. On 9 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment as regards the amount of compensation awarded but quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the date from which the interest should run. 28. On 28 November 2001 the Van Administrative Court held that the date of interest would start to run from the date when the applicant lodged an application with the Ministry, i.e. 20 February 1995. 29. On 19 March 1998 the Van Administrative Court, basing its decision on the doctrine of “social risk”, awarded the applicant a certain amount of compensation. 30. The Ministry appealed. 31. On 15 March 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to determine which administrative entity, either the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Defence, had responsibility for compensating the applicant. 32. On 9 October 2001 the Van Administrative Court, basing its decision on the doctrine of “social risk” on the same ground as above, awarded the third applicant TRL 305,135,146[5] in respect of pecuniary damage together with legal interest running from 20 May 1995. 33. The Ministry appealed. 34. On 31 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

4. The applicant company is a joint stock company based in Ploieşti. 5. In 2000 the applicant company brought proceedings against the Ariceştii Rahtivani town council seeking payment by the latter of the amount of 448,586,286 old Romanian lei (ROL), updated at the date of payment, for damages allegedly resulting from a contract they had entered into, which concerned repairs that had to be carried out by the applicant company to the defendant's new headquarters. The applicant company also requested the court to attach the defendant's accounts up to that amount and to order the town council to pay interest in accordance with Government Ordinance no. 9/2000 regarding the legal level of interest for pecuniary obligations. 6. On 15 May 2001 the Prahova County Court (“the County Court”) attached the town council's financial assets in the Treasury. 7. On 28 August 2001 the County Court, by an enforceable judgment, allowed the action in part and ordered the town council to pay the applicant company ROL 433,545,816 as due payment and ROL 33,315,916 in respect of the costs of the proceedings. The court based its findings on an accounting expert report which had updated the due amount and had also calculated the due interest in accordance with Government Ordinance no. 9/2000. 8. On 18 January 2002 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), by a final decision, allowed an appeal by the applicant company, considering that it was also entitled to the reimbursement of the penalties for overdue payments to the State budget. It therefore supplemented the previous amount by ROL 751,742,532 for damages and ROL 15,923,050 for costs of proceedings and further ordered the defendant to pay ROL 13,284,025 in respect of the costs of the appeal proceedings. 9. In February-April 2002 the debtor paid, in four instalments, ROL 433,545,816. In September 2003 it paid ROL 33,315,916. These were the amounts stipulated by the judgment of 28 August 2001. 10. On 9 April 2002 the Ploieşti Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”), in private, consented to a seizure requested by the bailiff, at the applicant company's request, in respect of the town council's goods and declared that the two judgments could be enforced, since the debtor had not voluntarily executed its obligation. An appeal by the town council was dismissed on 14 June 2002 by the County Court, which held that the debtor's appeal was an attempt to procrastinate and abusively delay the payment. That ruling became final. 11. By two interlocutory decisions delivered in private on 18 June 2003 the Court of First Instance, upon two requests by the applicant company, attached the town council's immovable and movable property and declared that the two judgments could be enforced. Two appeals by the town council were allowed by two judgments of 19 September 2003 of the County Court, which found that the town council had to pay only the remainder, ROL 576,828,428. 12. On 7 April 2004 the town council also paid ROL 576,828,428 out of the ROL 751,742,532 stipulated by the judgment of 18 January 2002, as well as ROL 15,923,050 for costs and expenses stipulated by the same judgment. 13. However, on 13 July 2004 and 8 February 2005 respectively the Court of Appeal, by final decisions, allowed further appeals by the applicant company and upheld the rulings of the two interlocutory decisions (see paragraph 11 above), considering that it was not for the court which had authorised the enforcement to establish the scope of the obligation contained in the title. 14. Following the payment of 7 April 2004 (see paragraph 12 above), but before the judgment of 13 July 2004 (see paragraph 13 above), the town council objected to the execution. An accounting expert report was produced in the proceedings, assessing the remaining debt according to the dates of the partial payments and on the basis of the inflation rate and of the interest rate provided by Government Ordinance no. 9/2000. 15. On 9 December 2004 the Court of First Instance allowed the objection in part and ordered the continuation of the execution by seizure up to ROL 1,353,840,852. The court relied on Article 3712 § 3 of the Code of Civil Proceedings (“CCP”) (see Relevant domestic law below) and approved the findings of the accounting expert report, considering that the court which had awarded damages to the applicant company had also deemed necessary to award the loss of profit or any benefit, since the applicant company was engaged in commercial activity and thus would have had the opportunity to use those amounts if they had been paid when those judgments were delivered. 16. The town council appealed, alleging that the applicant company had no enforceable entitlement to both the inflation rate and the loss of profit. It considered that, from the interpretation of Article 3712 § 3 of the CCP, the applicant company was not entitled to claim the updating of the amount since that fact was not mentioned in the operative parts of the judgments of 28 August 2001 and 18 January 2002. The town council further contested the findings of the first-instance court, which held that the courts which had awarded damages had also awarded the sums in respect of loss of profit under Government Ordinance no. 9/2000, since the applicant company was a trading company. That finding was thus in conflict with Article 3712 § 2 of the CCP (see Relevant domestic law below). 17. At a hearing on 11 March 2005 the applicant company's lawyer submitted a request for the proceedings to be adjourned because of illness and consequent inability to appear before the court. The court dismissed that request and, in order to allow the applicant company to submit written conclusions, put forward the deliberations to 18 March 2005. On 17 March 2005 the applicant company further submitted to the court a request to restore the case to its list, and also its lawyer's written conclusions on the merits. 18. On 18 March 2005 the County Court, by a final decision, upheld the appeal by the town council and ordered the continuation of the execution by seizure up to ROL 190,836,157. Invoking Article 3712 § 2 of the CCP, the court found unlawful the judgment of the first-instance court, which had awarded to the applicant company, at the same time, amounts in respect both of the rate of inflation and of loss of profit or any benefit, considering that the loss of profit or any benefit from an amount of money was precisely the rate of inflation. Therefore, it updated the remainder in accordance with inflation, without awarding loss of profit or any benefit in addition. 19. On 28 October 2005 the applicant's representative lodged a criminal complaint against the mayor, alleging abuse of authority. On 2 February 2007 the public prosecutor decided that there were no grounds which would justify initiating a criminal action against the mayor. 20. On 9 June 2008 the Ariceştii Rahtivani town council informed the Government Agent that all the amounts stipulated in the judgments had been paid to the applicant company and that the town council had no financial obligation towards the applicant company. 21. According to a certificate delivered by the bailiff on 17 February 2009, the debt mentioned by the judgments of 28 August 2001 and 18 January 2002 was paid by 9 April 2004. Further, the amount mentioned by the final decision of 18 March 2005 was paid on 14 July 2005. However, the enforcement fees had been deducted from that last amount and therefore there remained an amount of 7,720 new Romanian lei (RON) to be recovered.

5. The applicants were born in 1982 and 1981 respectively. The first applicant is serving a prison sentence in Kolomyya Prison no. 41. The second applicant lives in Khmelnytskyy[1]. 6. On 13 March 2004 two persons wearing masks, one of whom was armed with a gun, attacked a certain Ms I. and her son at the door of their flat in Khmelnytskyy. In the course of the fight the armed intruder shot at Ms I., after which they both retreated without any further action and without their faces being seen. Some minutes later Ms I. died. 7. On 20 May 2004, at about 1 p.m., the police apprehended the first applicant in the street and took him to the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station. According to a written explanation addressed by one of the arresting officers to the Chief of the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Department, the apprehension was occasioned by the suspicious behaviour of the applicant, whom the police had seen “walking fast and looking around”, entering a building (according to the case-file materials, that was the building in which the applicant lived), leaving it when approached and trying to re-enter it later. In the applicant's submission, he was asked by two officers to go to the police station “to clarify some issues”, to which he agreed. 8. The applicant was body-searched in the police station. As a result, a packet containing a “green substance of plant origin” was discovered in his pocket. According to the applicant, it had been planted on him by the police. 9. On the same day, at 10.45 p.m., on the premises of the police station, the applicant was placed in “administrative detention” on suspicion of illegal drug possession. As noted in the respective police report, the offence on suspicion of which the applicant was detained was “a breach of Article 44 of the Code on Administrative Offences”. 10. The applicant's relatives, while learning about his detention from a witness, were not informed of his whereabouts and enquired unsuccessfully at various police stations and detention facilities in the town, including the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station. 11. On 22 May 2004 an expert report was issued, according to which the substance discovered in the applicant's pocket was not a drug. 12. On 23 May 2004 the applicant was released in the administrative offence proceedings “given the fact that all the circumstances of the case [had] been established and that [his release would] not impede further investigation”. He was however immediately re-arrested in the framework of the criminal proceedings (see below). 13. On 29 May 2004 the police terminated the administrative offence proceedings, finding that there was no case to answer. 14. The applicant's account of the events of 21 May 2004 is as follows. During the night of 20 to 21 May 2004 he was taken from the cell to an office in the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station, where the police officers R.O. and M.D. urged him, under threat of violence, to confess that he had murdered Ms I. As the applicant refused to confess, at about 4 a.m. those officers brought in a manual electricity generator. The applicant was handcuffed and suspended from a metal bar between two tables, with naked wires from the generator attached to his ankles and coccyx. One of the officers, R.O., administered electric shocks to the applicant, while the other officer, M.D., gagged his mouth with a sofa cushion. At about 6.30 a.m. the applicant lost consciousness. After he had recovered consciousness, several officers took it in turns to beat him until 8 p.m., having previously put a bullet-proof jacket on him and covered his head with a pillow. In the meantime, at about 4 p.m., the applicant heard his wife (the second applicant) being questioned in the neighbouring office. One of the officers entered the office where the applicant was, and asked his colleague: “Do you think she would be able to survive what he has gone through?” The applicant then wrote his first confession, allegedly under dictation from a police officer. He stated that he had committed the murder of Ms I. together with a certain Mr M. At 10.05 p.m. the applicant was placed in the Khmelnytskyy Temporary Detention Facility (the “Khmelnytskyy ITT”). 15. The Government did not submit their version of the events of 21 May 2004, apart from mentioning the first applicant's placement in the Khmelnytskyy ITT. 16. At some point on 21 May 2004 the applicant was taken to the investigator in the Khmelnytskyy City Prosecutor's Office (“the KCPO”), to whom he complained about his alleged torture by electric shocks. 17. On 24 May 2004 the applicant repeated his complaint to the investigator during questioning. On the same day he was examined by a doctor of the Khmelnytskyy Regional Forensic Medical Bureau, who noted that his both ankles had sores of 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm and 2.3 cm x 0.9 cm respectively. The doctor concluded that those injuries were minor and could have been inflicted on the applicant with blunt objects some three days earlier. Given their nature, which the doctor described as “unspecific”, he expressed doubt as to the plausibility of the applicant's allegation that electric current had been applied to him. 18. On 26 May 2004 the applicant's lawyer and relatives complained to the KCPO that he had been tortured during the first hours of 21 May 2004 by two police officers, R.O. and D. They noted that the doctor who had examined the applicant on 23 May 2003 had ignored a number of pinpoint sores on his ankles and that the medical report had been inaccurate. The complainants sought an investigation into the matter and a new medical examination of the first applicant. 19. On the same day the first applicant raised the ill-treatment complaint before the Khmelnytskyy City Court during the examination of the prosecutor's request for him to be remanded in custody (see paragraph 41 below). The court allegedly ignored his complaint. 20. Later on the same day the first applicant was allegedly beaten again by police officers, who had previously put a bullet-proof jacket on him. He confessed to the crimes again. 21. On 7 June 2004 the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Department examined the office in which the first applicant's questioning had been conducted on 21 May 2004 and issued a report according to which “there were no foreign objects discovered there which could have been used for inflicting bodily injuries”. 22. On 10 June 2004 the first applicant underwent another forensic medical examination ordered by the investigator. According to its report, twenty pinpoint sores had been discovered on the applicant's feet and ankles, each about 0.3 cm wide and 0.2 cm long. A purple bruise, 3 cm x 2 cm, was discovered on the back of his right thigh. The doctor concluded that the injuries were minor and could have been inflicted with blunt objects, possibly on 24 May 2004. The report mentioned: “There is no medical indication that the injuries were caused by an electric current”. 23. On 15 June 2004 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Police Department issued a report of its internal investigation in which it found the first applicant's allegation of his ill-treatment in police custody to be unsubstantiated. The report was based on the questioning of the police officers involved, who denied any coercion, as well as the medical findings of 24 May and the office examination report of 7 June 2004. 24. On 18 June 2004 the KCPO issued a decision refusing criminal prosecution of the police officers for lack of corpus delicti in their actions. It was mainly based on the questioning of the police officers involved and the findings of the medical reports of 24 May and 10 June 2004. 25. The first applicant challenged that refusal both separately and in the course of his own trial. In September 2005 the KCPO informed him that his complaints about his alleged ill-treatment by the police had been added to his own case file and would be considered in the course of his trial. 26. Overall, the prosecutor's refusal on 18 June 2004 to bring proceedings against the police officers involved to establish their criminal liability was quashed and subsequently upheld three times. Having quashed it for the last time on 28 March 2007, the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court”) also referred to the fact that the first applicant's ill-treatment complaint had been included in the case file concerning his own criminal case and was to be examined in the context of his trial (see also paragraph 95 below). 27. On 22 June 2004 the first applicant was transferred from the Khmelnytskyy ITT to the Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). According to the Government, he did not raise any allegation about ill‑treatment before the ITT or the SIZO medical personnel or administration. 28. On 20 July 2004 the first applicant was allegedly beaten up again by the police officers who had escorted him to the court for a decision regarding his detention. On the same date his father raised a complaint in that regard before the General Prosecutor's Office (“the GPO”). 29. The applicant's father also complained about the alleged ill‑treatment of the applicant to the hotline of the Organised Crime Combating Unit of the Khmelnytskyy Regional Police Department. 30. On 19 August 2004 the aforementioned authority decided to forward the case to the Khmelnytskyy Regional Prosecutor's Office (“the KRPO”) given the inability of its own investigation to establish the truth. 31. In June 2005 the first applicant's lawyer asked a licensed private forensic-medical centre for an expert's conclusion regarding the following: (a) whether the findings of the medical reports of 24 May and 10 June 2004 provided grounds to state that the injuries to the applicant's ankles might have been caused by blunt objects; (b) what marks typically appeared on the skin in cases of direct contact with electric current and whether the marks on the applicant's body were of that nature; (c) what injuries could be caused if a bullet-proof jacket was put on the person before beating. 32. On 29 June 2005 two experts of the aforementioned centre, with twenty-three and four years of experience respectively, issued a report with the following conclusions: the first applicant's injuries could not have been caused by blunt objects; their number and features indicated that they might have been inflicted on 21 May 2004 by contacts, possibly multiple ones, with naked electric wires. As to the question about injuries from beatings inflicted through a bullet-proof jacket, the doctors referred to statements from their colleagues at the Khmelnytskyy Regional Forensic Medical Bureau given in the course of the trial, according to which in such cases internal injuries could be inflicted. They could be identified by X-ray, whereas the first applicant had not been X-rayed. 33. As is apparent from the ruling of the Shepetivka Court of 10 July 2006 (see paragraph 82 below), the above medical report had been included in the first applicant's case file. 34. The facts concerning the investigation into the applicant's ill‑treatment allegation in the course of his trial are summarised below in the sections pertaining to the trial. 35. On 21 May 2004 the first applicant confessed to the armed assault and murder of Ms I. (see also paragraph 14 above). 36. On the same date the investigator applied to the Khmelnytskyy City Court for authorisation to search two flats where the first applicant's domicile was registered and where he actually lived. As noted in the application, the investigation had revealed that the applicant might have been involved in the murder and that significant evidence might be found at the place of his residence and/or official domicile. 37. On the same day the Khmelnytskyy City Court authorised the requested searches. 38. At about 9 p.m. the police searched the flat where the first applicant lived with his wife (the second applicant). Later that same evening they searched his parents' flat where his domicile was registered. Apparently the searches did not reveal anything of relevance to the investigation. (b) Pre-trial investigation and the first applicant's detention 39. On 23 May 2004 a criminal case was opened against the first applicant on suspicion of assault with intent to commit robbery and murder for profit, and he was arrested by the investigator in the context of the criminal proceedings. The investigator documented the arrest at 12 a.m. by filling in a document template entitled “Record of a suspect's arrest”. The reasons for the arrest were included in the pre-printed part of the template and read as follows: “Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it cannot be ruled out that the suspect [name] may evade the investigation and impede the establishment of the truth, which, together with the seriousness of the crime committed, provides grounds for his detention”. In the line “Explanations of the detainee” it was noted that the first applicant “had not given any explanations”. The applicant had been body-searched, with “nothing having been discovered”. On the same day he withdrew his earlier confessions, alleging they had been extracted by force. 40. On 26 May 2004 the KCPO requested the Khmelnytskyy City Court to remand the applicant in custody, referring to strong evidence against him and to the fact that he was suspected of having committed serious crimes. According to the request, on 21 May 2004 the first applicant had walked into the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station and had given himself up to the police, confessing to assault and murder. It then stated that he had been detained on suspicion of the aforementioned crimes on 23 May 2004. 41. On the same day, 26 May 2004, the Khmelnytskyy City Court, following a hearing with the participation of the first applicant and the lawyer contracted by his parents, Mr Ma. (see § 53 below), allowed the prosecutor's request and remanded the applicant in custody. It referred to the gravity of the charges against him and the inherent risk of his absconding or obstructing justice. It was noted in the aforementioned ruling that it could be appealed against within three days. 42. The case file contains a copy of the first applicant's written statement dated 28 May 2004, according to which he refused to make any statement in the course of the pre-trial investigation, relying on Article 63 of the Constitution. At the same time it transpires from some other documents that on the aforementioned date the applicant made another confession. According to the first applicant, he confessed again after his alleged beating by police officers in the Khmelnytskyy KCPO and the confession was dictated by the investigator. 43. On 1 June 2004 the first applicant again confessed to those crimes in the presence of his lawyer (Mr Ma.). According to him, those confessions were made in the presence of the police officers involved in his alleged ill‑treatment. The record of his questioning of 1 June 2004 contained both his confession and his note “I do not admit my guilt”. 44. On 2 June 2004 a certain Mr M. was arrested on the same charges as those laid against the applicant and confessed to the crimes after his alleged beating by police officers (as he would later complain during his trial). 45. On 5 June 2004 a confrontation was held between the applicant and Mr M., during which the first applicant repeated his confession in the presence of the appointed lawyer Mr Ko. (see paragraph 52 below). 46. On 15 July 2004 the first applicant, in the presence of the lawyer Mr Ma., retracted his earlier confessions as having been given under duress and pleaded not guilty. 47. On 20 July 2004 the Khmelnytskyy City Court, acting at the prosecutor's request, extended the term of the first applicant's detention to 23 September 2004, referring to the seriousness of the charges against him and to the inherent risk of his absconding, as well as the possibility of his impeding the investigation which had not yet been completed. 48. On 31 August 2004 the charges against the first applicant were changed from premeditated murder to grievous bodily harm causing death. Both co-accused were also charged with violent robbery and unlawful possession of weapons. 49. On 3 September 2004 the investigation was declared complete, and the first applicant and Mr M. received access to the case file. 50. On 22 September 2004 the case was sent to the Khmelnytskyy City Court. (c) Legal representation of the first applicant during the pre-trial investigation 51. According to the first applicant, he was not legally represented during the period from 20 to 24 May 2004. 52. The Government maintained that on 23 May 2004 a lawyer (Mr Ko.) was appointed for the applicant. 53. On 24 May 2004 the first applicant's parents entered into an agreement with a private lawyer, Mr Ma., for legal representation of the applicant in the criminal proceedings against him. 54. On 25 May 2004 Mr Ma. received from the investigator dealing with the case a written permit for his meetings with the first applicant in the Khmelnytskyy ITT, where his client was detained. 55. On 27 May 2004 the first applicant refused the services of the appointed lawyer Mr Ko. and expressed his wish to be represented by Mr Ma. During some investigative activities thereafter he however agreed to be represented by Mr Ko. 56. On 2 June 2004 Mr Ma. was not admitted to see the applicant on the ground that the permit allegedly contained flaws. On the following day he complained about that to the Chief of the Khmelnytskyy Police Department. 57. On 18 June 2004 Mr Ma. also complained to the KCPO that the investigator was obstructing his participation in the investigative measures. He submitted in particular that he had not been duly notified of the investigative activities, which were conducted in his absence. Furthermore, he complained that the lawyer appointed for the applicant was incompetent. 58. On 24 June 2004 the Chief of the Khmelnytskyy Police Department wrote to Mr Ma. that indeed the ITT official had wrongly impeded his meetings with the applicant for which he had been disciplined. (d) The first applicant's acquittal and release by the Khmelnytskyy City Court 59. On 14 October 2004 the Khmelnytskyy City Court held a preparatory hearing at which it maintained the first applicant's detention. The materials submitted by the parties to the Court did not contain a copy of that ruling. 60. On 5 May 2005 the Khmelnytskyy City Court, under the presidency of Judge P., acquitted the applicant on all the charges, while the other co-defendant, Mr M., was found guilty of an unrelated instance of illegal possession of weapons (a hunting gun and a box of bullets – of no relation to the murder of Ms I. – had been discovered in his garage). The court found that there was no evidence of the defendants' guilt and that their confessions had been extracted by force. 61. The judgment noted as follows: “As it had been stated by the defendants in the course of the pre-trial investigation and later confirmed during the trial, ... the police had applied physical and psychological violence to them with the intention of coercing them into confessing to the murder which they had not committed and the circumstances of which they had found out from the police. There are no doubts about that, as it clearly transpires from the case file that the defendants were under arrest when they wrote their confessions. They name specific officers of the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station as behaving violently towards them, and give a detailed account of their actions. The medical examinations held at the defendants' requests [...] revealed injuries to their bodies. During the pre-trial investigation [the applicant and Mr M.] retracted their confessions to the crime against the family of [Ms I]. and complained to various authorities that they had been ill‑treated in police custody.” 62. The court noted that both the circumstances and motives of the crime were presented inconsistently in the confessions of the co-defendants. It observed that they had attracted the suspicion of the police only because the son of Ms I., who had happened to see them together in the street, believed that their statures and size were similar to those of the offenders. The court found that that investigation had wrongly taken over that wholly unsubstantiated argument. Moreover, it recognised all the findings of the investigation as mere presumptions not corroborated by any evidence. 63. The court further observed that the pre-trial investigation relied “as one of the key pieces of evidence proving the defendants' guilt” on the statements of a taxi driver, Mr K., who stated that he had taken two passengers somewhere close to the building where the murder took place. The court noted, however, that his description of those passengers changed on 22 March 2004 in comparison with that given earlier on 13 March 2004. While Mr K. had not been able to indicate any specific features of their appearance, he later recognised the first applicant from a choice of two persons “by his size”. 64. As to the other evidence, three witnesses had seen two persons running down the stairs close to the murder site, but they were not able to identify them as the defendants. The investigation had also found a box containing bullets at Mr M.'s home, but they were of a different type from the one with which the victim had been shot. 65. The court lifted the preventive measure concerning the applicant. 66. On the same day, 5 May 2005, the Khmelnytskyy City Court issued a separate ruling, by which it brought to the attention of the KRPO, the Khmelnytskyy Regional Police Department and the Khmelnytskyy Bureau of Forensic Medical Expertise the following violations: “[the defendants] had been detained for fictitious reasons; they had not been examined in the presence of attested witnesses; neither the reasons for the detention nor their right to defence had been explained to them; and their relatives had not been informed that they were detained”. 67. It was also noted in the separate ruling that the defendants had consistently complained that they had been ill-treated in police custody, naming the police officers involved, and that injuries had been discovered on their bodies. The court considered that the doctor who had examined the applicant on 24 May 2004 had come to a superficial and unfounded conclusion that there were no injuries caused by electric current. 68. On 5 May 2005 the Khmelnytskyy City Court also issued another ruling, by which it quashed the prosecutor's decision of 18 June 2004 not to open a criminal case into the applicant's allegation that he had been ill-treated in police custody. (e) Transfer of the case to the Ternopil Regional Court of Appeal and overturning of the first applicant's acquittal 69. Messrs I. (the son and husband of the deceased Ms I. having victim status in the proceedings) appealed against the judgment of 5 May 2005. In June 2005 they challenged before the Supreme Court the composition of the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal, which was to examine their appeal, on the ground that some of its judges allegedly had friendly relations with Judge P. under whose presidency the impugned judgment had been delivered at first instance. They further contended that certain judges there were members of the regional lawyers' qualification and disciplinary board to which the defendants' lawyers also belonged. Messrs I. therefore sought the transfer of the case to any other regional appellate court. 70. On 23 June 2005 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court instructed the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court to transfer the case to the Ternopil Regional Court of Appeal (“the Ternopil Court”) “with a view to ensuring the most comprehensive and objective examination of the case”. 71. On 11 August 2005 the Ternopil Court found that the first-instance court had failed to assess all the evidence in the case thoroughly and conclusively and that it had accepted the defendants' allegations that they had been ill-treated in police custody, without having taken into consideration the related findings of the prosecution authorities. It also remarked that no assessment had been made of the confessions by the defendants in the presence of their lawyers. The Ternopil Court noted that some hearings had been held without the prosecutor's participation, and that the Khmelnytskyy City Court had not responded to the victims' request for remittal of the case for additional investigation, by which they had sought application of a stricter provision of the Criminal Code. On those grounds, the Ternopil Court quashed both the acquittal and the two rulings of the Khmelnytskyy City Court of 5 May 2005, and remitted the case to it for fresh examination by a different panel. 72. The Ternopil Court rejected the victims' request for transfer of the case to any other trial court in the Ternopil region, as such a transfer would be contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). (f) Transfer of the case to the Shepetivka City Court and the first applicant's retrial 73. In August and September 2005 the lawyer representing the victims requested the Supreme Court to transfer the case from the Khmelnytskyy City Court to a court in a different region. He noted that Judge P. under whose presidency the case had earlier been examined (see paragraph 60 above), was the Deputy President of the Khmelnytskyy City Court and that he would therefore influence the proceedings regardless of the panel's composition. 74. On 20 September 2005 the First Deputy President of the Supreme Court, while finding no grounds to transfer the case to a different region, instructed the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court to consider transferring it to another court within the Khmelnytskyy region. 75. On 29 September 2005 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court transferred the case to the Shepetivka City Court (“the Shepetivka Court”), within the Khmelnytskyy region. 76. On 21 November 2005 the Shepetivka Court held a preparatory hearing, during which the victims unsuccessfully sought a change of preventive measure in respect of the defendants. 77. On 4 January 2006 the Shepetivka Court again rejected the victims' request for pre-trial detention of the co-defendants instead of an undertaking not to abscond. The court noted that the co-defendants had not been evading or impeding the investigation. 78. On 10 July 2006 the Shepetivka Court remitted the case to the KCPO for additional investigation, indicating thirty-seven shortcomings in the investigation previously undertaken, which could not be remedied in the course of the trial. 79. The court noted, inter alia, that the defendants' confessions lacked consistency, as did the statements by the witnesses and the victim (Mr I., the son of Ms I.). It observed in particular that Mr I. had initially stated on several occasions that he and his mother had been attacked by their business competitors. Later in the trial, he changed both his description of the perpetrators' appearance (which then contradicted that given by some other witnesses) and his version as to who they might have been. Furthermore, the case file contained a report from the police, according to which one of the taxi drivers had heard from a neighbour of Ms I. that the latter had been receiving threatening telephone calls because she had reduced the prices of her products. There was no further investigation into the matter. 80. The court also noted that the investigator had given no reasoning for having changed the charges against the applicant from murder to inflicting grievous bodily harm causing death, with a new charge of illegal possession of weapons added. 81. The Shepetivka Court next expressed its concern over the way the investigation had received the statements by the taxi driver Mr K. (according to the court's ruling – a key witness in the case), who had recognised the applicant as one of his two passengers whom he had driven to the building where the crime was committed, around the time of the murder, had waited for there for about half an hour and had then driven to a café. The court noted that on 22 March 2004 the investigator had questioned Mr K. as a witness in the case concerning the murder of Ms I., while at the same time Mr K. was detained in the Khmelnytskyy ITT on suspicion of illegal drug possession. While both Mr K. and the investigator denied the above in the course of the applicant's trial, the ITT administration confirmed that on the aforementioned date, which was also the documented date of Mr K.'s questioning as a witness, he had been in detention in the ITT. Moreover, according to the register of detainees' movements, on the above-mentioned date Mr K. was in the ITT. 82. Furthermore, the court noted that the defendants' allegations that they had been ill-treated in police custody had not been duly investigated. Its critical remarks included the following: “The [KCPO] refused to open a criminal case relying on the absolutely identical explanations of the [police officers], who are interested persons and whom the defendants accuse of torture, as well as the conclusions of the internal investigation undertaken by senior [police officers] in respect of their own subordinates, which the court considers unacceptable. At the same time, the [KCPO] failed to clarify why, for what reasons, under what circumstances and in what manner [the applicant] sustained the injuries while being held in the ITT, but not in the SIZO, for over a month. ... The case file contains a forensic medical report, according to which [the applicant's] injuries might have originated from electric shocks. ... Given the discrepancies in the medical findings ..., an additional forensic medical examination should be undertaken ...” 83. On the same day, 10 July 2006, the Shepetivka Court issued a separate ruling indicating a number of gross violations of the criminal procedural legislation in the course of the pre-trial investigation, similar to those mentioned in the separate ruling of the Khmelnytskyy City Court of 5 May 2005. The court again criticised the investigation undertaken into the allegations of both defendants about their ill-treatment in police custody. It made, in particular, the following observation: “The prosecutor entrusted the official investigation into the use of force on the defendants directly to the supervisors of the officers whom the defendants accuse of torture, and that investigation yielded a decision that there had been nothing criminal in the actions of those officers. The court considers this unacceptable.” 84. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigators had imposed on the applicant an appointed lawyer, although the applicant had already been represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, who remained uninformed about the investigative measures undertaken. (g) Repeated transfer of the case to the Ternopil Court 85. The victims appealed against the aforementioned rulings of the Shepetivka Court. At the same time, they opposed the examination of the case by the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court. 86. On 28 July 2006 the First Deputy President of the Supreme Court again instructed the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court to transfer the case to the Ternopil Court, referring to the reasoning given in support of such transfer in his letter of 23 June 2005. 87. On 4 August 2006 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court sent the case file to the Ternopil Court. 88. On 4 October 2006 the Ternopil Court quashed, on formal grounds, the separate ruling of the Shepetivka Court of 10 July 2006 and upheld the decision of the KCPO of 18 June 2004 refusing to institute criminal proceedings against police officers on the first applicant's complaint that he had been ill-treated. The Ternopil Court concluded that the requirements of Article 236-1 of the CCP had not been complied with: there had been no written application for quashing the refusal of 18 June 2004, and, in any event, such an application would have had to be lodged with the Khmelnytskyy City Court. 89. The Ternopil Court also excluded from the Shepetivka Court's ruling of 10 July 2006 remitting the case for additional investigation all issues other than those concerning the classification of the defendants' actions under the Criminal Code and assessment of the testimony of the son of Ms I. Thus, the Ternopil Court noted in its ruling as follows: “In the light of all the materials of the case, namely, the collected evidence, the nature of the criminal actions, the instrument of the crime being a firearm, the conclusions of the forensic medical expert on the location and nature of the wounds, the bench considers that the victim's ... life was taken deliberately and thus there is every ground to classify the defendants' actions under a different criminal provision envisaging liability for a more grievous crime”. (h) The first applicant's remand in custody from 22 to 23 November 2006 90. On 22 November 2006, at 10.50 a.m., the first applicant was arrested by the investigator on suspicion of premeditated murder. The investigator substantiated this decision with the standard wording of the arrest report template, which read as follows: “the eyewitnesses, including the victims, directly indicate this person as the one who committed the crime”. 91. On 23 November 2006 the KCPO ordered the applicant's release with a reference to the criminal procedure provisions concerning a replacement of one preventive measure by another. 92. On the same date the first applicant complained to the KRPO about the alleged unlawfulness of his detention during the aforementioned period. (i) Joinder of the first applicant's complaint about his alleged ill-treatment to his own criminal case 93. In line with the aforementioned ruling of the Ternopil Court of 4 October 2006 (see paragraph 88 above), the first applicant challenged the KCPO's ruling of 18 July 2004 before the Khmelnytskyy City Court. 94. On 26 February 2007 the Khmelnytskyy City Court quashed the ruling of 18 June 2004 and remitted the case to the KCPO, allowing the complaint. 95. On 28 March 2007 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court quashed the aforementioned ruling of 26 February 2007 on the KCPO's appeal and ruled that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment was to take place within the first applicant's own criminal case, which was being examined by the Ternopil Court. (j) The first applicant's detention from 18 December 2006 to 31 August 2007 96. On 30 November 2006 the investigator brought formal charges against the first applicant on two counts of premeditated murder for profit (considering that he had also attempted to kill the son of Ms I. and failed for reasons beyond his control), violent robbery and illegal possession of weapons. 97. On the same day the investigator applied to the Khmelnytskyy City Court for replacement of the preventive measure in respect of the first applicant from the undertaking not to abscond to pre-trial detention. Referring to the seriousness of the charges as advanced on the same date and the inherent risk of absconding, the investigator submitted that detention was a more appropriate preventive measure. 98. On 18 December 2006 the Khmelnytskyy City Court – at the hearing with the participation of the first applicant and his lawyer – examined the aforementioned application of the investigator as well as the first applicant's complaint about the alleged unlawfulness of his detention from 22 to 23 November 2006. The court lifted the applicant's undertaking not to abscond and remanded him in custody at the prosecutor's request. It dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant's complaint about his arrest of 22 November 2006. The court gave as the reasons for the new preventive measure the fact that the applicant was suspected of serious crimes and that he could abscond or hinder the establishment of the truth. The court referred to unspecified statements made by the victims. As regards the applicant's complaint about his detention from 22 to 23 November 2006, it noted that there were no reasons to consider it unlawful. 99. The first applicant's father and lawyer appealed, submitting that the applicant had always complied with the investigator's summons while under the undertaking not to abscond and that the allegations of the victim's family about his attempts to influence their testimony had been confined to their suspicion that “somebody had been following them”. Furthermore, they noted that the first applicant had health problems, referring to the fact that at the time of the arrest order he was undergoing in-patient treatment in a neurological hospital, of which he provided documentary evidence. They also submitted that he had a permanent place of residence, no criminal record in the past, had a small baby to support, and was studying at a university. They therefore insisted that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond. The first applicant's representatives also challenged the finding of the Khmelnytskyy City Court concerning his detention from 22 to 23 November 2006. They did not make any comments or complaints regarding their or the applicant's access to the case-file materials prior to the examination of the prosecutor's appeal by the court on 18 December 2006. 100. On 21 December 2006 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal, following a hearing with the participation of the first applicant's lawyer and father, rejected the applicant's appeal and upheld his detention with a reference to the gravity of the charges against him and “the witnesses' fears for their safety”. It also dismissed the applicant's complaint concerning his detention from 22 to 23 November 2006 having found “no significant grounds for recognising [it] unlawful”. 101. On the same date the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court extended the first applicant's pre-trial detention, on the investigator's application, to five months (to 23 January 2007 – with his detention from 23 May to 22 September 2004 included therein). The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his unspecified attempts to impede establishment of the truth, as well as to the significant volume of the case file. 102. On 23 January 2007 the investigator applied to the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court for another extension of the first applicant's pre-trial detention, referring to the scope of the remaining investigative work. 103. In January 2007 (the date is illegible) the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention to six months (to 23 February 2007). It founded its decision on the time required for the applicant to study the case file, the seriousness of the charges, and his “negative behaviour when at large”. 104. On 19 February 2007 the first applicant was indicted, and the case was sent to the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal. (k) The first applicant's retrial and conviction by the Ternopil Court as the court of first instance 105. On an unspecified date in 2007 it was decided that the Ternopil Court would try the case as a court of first instance. 106. On 21 March 2007 the Ternopil Court held a preparatory hearing. The court upheld the first applicant's detention, having found that “there [were] no grounds for changing the preventive measure”. It did not set any time-limits for the detention. 107. On 31 August 2007 the Ternopil Court found the first applicant guilty of premeditated murder for profit committed following a conspiracy with a group of persons, assault with intent to rob, and illegal possession of weapons, and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment. 108. The court relied, inter alia, on the statements by the taxi driver Mr K., according to which he had taken two passengers to the building where the crime was committed, waited for them there for about half an hour and then driven them away. He recognised the applicant “by the features of his face, shape of the nose and his hair” as being one of those passengers. Mr K. denied that any pressure had been put on him by the police. He mentioned that he had been questioned in the prosecutor's office, but did not remember any details about that questioning. The investigator who had questioned Mr K. stated that the questioning had taken place in the prosecutor's office and on a different date than that mentioned in the questioning report, with the discrepancy in the dates being a typing error. Mr K. denied as inaccurate the first applicant's allegation that he had admitted to the latter having slandered him under pressure from the police. The court noted as follows: “There is no information from which it could be discerned that unlawful investigation methods were applied to witness [Mr K.] entailing his incriminating statements against the defendants as they allege. The allegation of [the first applicant] that [Mr K.] was arrested on 19 March 2004, remained in police custody until 22 March 2004 and that is why he recognised [the first applicant as the offender] is unfounded. It is not corroborated by the materials of the case and cannot be interpreted as an indication of any pressure on [Mr K.] with a view to incriminating the defendants. The witness [Mr K.] denied this fact during the court hearing in a categorical manner, as well as denying the allegation that he had admitted to [the first applicant] having incriminated him under pressure from the police, as [the first applicant] has submitted many times. The panel considers the statements of [Mr K.] given during the pre-trial investigation and the trial to be truthful, as both during the pre-trial investigation and during the judicial proceedings they were identical, consistent in detail and without any considerable discrepancies as alleged by the defendants and their defence. The court therefore takes them into consideration in the basis of the conviction as proof of the defendants' ... guilt, being concordant with the other evidence.” 109. The court also took into account the testimony of the son of Ms I., who thought he had recognised the first applicant and the other co-defendant by their postures and gestures, having seen them together in the street. It further took note of statements from several witnesses who had seen two persons wearing masks close to the crime scene. The Ternopil Court relied on the defendants' confessions given at the initial stages of the pre-trial investigation. It attributed some discrepancies between the defendants' versions to the voluntary nature of their confessions. The police officers allegedly involved in the defendants' ill-treatment were questioned in the trial and denied those allegations. The court also noted that the first applicant had not complained about his ill-treatment to the ITT or to the SIZO authorities. It questioned the doctors who had examined the first applicant in May and June 2004, and they again concluded that his injuries were not typical of the effects of electric current. Furthermore, the court relied on the ruling of the KCPO of 18 June 2004 refusing to open a criminal case in respect of the first applicant's complaint. In the light of those considerations, the trial court found the first applicant's allegation that he had been ill-treated unsubstantiated. 110. The term of the first applicant's imprisonment was to be calculated from 18 December 2006 and included his detention from 23 May 2004 to 5 May 2005 and from 22 to 23 November 2006. 111. The first applicant lodged a cassation appeal, alleging, inter alia, that his guilt had never been proven and that his conviction was primarily based on his confessions extracted by torture and in the absence of legal assistance. He noted that the forensic medical report corroborating his allegation of having been tortured by electric shocks had remained ignored. 112. Furthermore, the first applicant stressed that the statements of Mr K., on which the trial court had relied as proof of his guilt, had drastically changed over time to his disadvantage and in suspicious circumstances. He submitted in particular that Mr K. had initially stated that he did not remember any features of his passengers of 13 March 2004. The first applicant further noted that on 19 March 2004 the police had apprehended Mr K. for being drunk. During his subsequent body-search a package of substance of “plant origin” had been discovered on him, and Mr K. had been arrested. It was during his administrative detention that he had “remembered” some general features of one of his passengers. The first applicant referred to specific pages in the case file quoting Mr K. as having stated during the trial that “there [was] a significant difference between those to whom [he] had given a lift [on 13 March 2004] and the defendants” and that the investigator had included some untruthful information in the records of his questioning during the pre-trial investigation. The applicant also submitted that the case file contained a transcript (by a technical expert) of his conversation with Mr K. made in 2006 (apparently during the period when the first applicant had been at large), in which Mr K. had stated that the police had forced him to incriminate the defendants under threat of being accused himself of the murder of Ms I., that drugs had been planted on him and that he had made the incriminatory statements while being detained in the ITT. The first applicant stressed that Mr K. had admitted in court that he had indeed met him in 2006 and that their conversation could have been recorded. He further complained that although the defence had sought the examination of the aforementioned audiotape in the hearing and putting questions in that respect to Mr K., the trial court had dismissed that motion without any explanations. It was also mentioned in the cassation appeal that the case file contained a copy of the investigator's ruling of 31 August 2004 about refusal to open a criminal case against Mr K. without reference to any provision of the Criminal Code – a fact, which, according to the first applicant, had remained without assessment. 113. On 20 March 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the first applicant's conviction. It referred mainly to his confessions during the pre-trial investigation, including those given in the presence of his lawyer, which it found to be corroborated by other evidence in the case. As to the first applicant's allegation that he had been ill-treated in police custody, the court noted that it had studied the videotape of the investigative activities and found that the applicant had given his confessional account of the events in a free and detailed manner and that there were no injuries on his body. Furthermore, according to the above ruling of the Supreme Court, the first applicant “had never referred to any specific persons who had allegedly ill‑treated him” and that he “had always replied that he was well when asked about his health”. The court considered that all the persons involved in the investigation of the applicant's allegation of ill-treatment had been questioned in the course of the trial and all the respective medical reports had been studied. In the light of all the aforementioned, it found the complaint of ill-treatment to be wholly unsubstantiated. 114. As regards the statements of witness Mr K., the Supreme Court noted that he “had been examined many times both during the pre-trial investigation and the trial” and that he had recognised the first applicant “without any hesitation”. It further noted as follows: “There is no information from which it could be discerned that the law-enforcement authorities applied unlawful methods to this witness, and therefore his statements were rightly taken into consideration in the basis of the conviction”. 115. The second applicant worked at a factory run by the victim's family. At the end of May 2004 she was in her eighth month of pregnancy. 116. On 21 May 2004, at about 4.00 p.m., the second applicant was at her workplace. The manager asked her to come in for a work-related conversation, when two plain-clothes police officers, allegedly without any explanation and not allowing her to change out of her uniform into her own clothes, took her to the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station. The second applicant was placed there in a room she described as very cold. The police officers, as well as the widower of Ms I., who was also present at the police station, allegedly shouted at her, threatened her with imprisonment and pushed her in the back, pressurising her to testify against her husband. 117. The second applicant wrote that her husband (the first applicant) had been with her at home at the time of the murder. 118. After the questioning, which lasted for about four hours, the second applicant was taken back to the factory. She had to wait there for some time until the door was opened so that she could change into her own clothes. 119. On 22 May 2004 the second applicant complained to the prosecution authorities about the alleged unlawfulness of her detention on 21 May 2004. 120. On 11 June 2004 the prosecution office wrote to her that the police had not violated any criminal procedure legislation.

7. On the night of 14 October 1991 a car was stolen from an unsecured car park. Early in 1992 a preliminary investigation in respect of the theft was opened against an unknown perpetrator. 8. On 28 May 1992 the first applicant was stopped by the police while driving the car of his parents – the second and third applicants. The police established a discrepancy between the numbers on the chassis of the vehicle and those in the registration documents of the vehicle which had been issued by the Pazardzhik Traffic Police on 17 July 1973. They seized and impounded the car in order to check its registration documents and ownership. The first applicant was questioned regarding the discrepancy in the car’s registration documents both on the above date and on 4 June 1992. 9. The investigating authorities commissioned a technical examination of the seized vehicle. In a report of 14 April 1993 the technical expert concluded that the number plate on the chassis of the car was not the original, but had been changed. 10. On 8 June 1993 the first applicant was charged with being an accessory to the theft of the car on 14 October 1991. He was questioned on the same day and then released. A restriction was imposed on the first applicant, not to leave his place of residence without the consent of the Prosecution Office. 11. No further investigative procedures were conducted in the course of the preliminary investigation. 12. On 3 April 1995 the first applicant complained to the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office about the length of the criminal proceedings. He did not receive a response. 13. Subsequently, the first applicant lodged similar complaints with the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office, the Pazardzhik Regional Prosecution Office, the Plovdiv Appellate Prosecution Office and the Chief Prosecutor about the length of the criminal proceedings. He did not receive a response to any of them. 14. Sometime in 1998 the investigator in charge of the preliminary investigation died, while the assistant investigator retired. The first applicant’s case was never reassigned to another investigator. 15. Sometime in September 1999 the first applicant lodged another complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings with the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office. In response, the Plovdiv Appellate Prosecution Office was instructed to investigate the first applicant’s complaint. 16. In a decision of 20 October 1999 of the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office the preliminary investigation was discontinued in respect of the first applicant as unproven. The restriction on the first applicant not to leave his place of residence without the consent of the Prosecution Office was removed. 17. The criminal proceedings continued, against an unknown perpetrator, until 27 September 2004 when the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office terminated them due to the expiry of the statute of limitations for the offence. In its decision, the Prosecution Office expressly noted that no investigative procedures had been conducted in the proceedings after 8 June 1993, the date on which the first applicant was arrested and charged. 18. The car was seized and impounded by the police on 28 May 1992 in order to check its registration documents and ownership. No protocol of seizure was prepared and the second and third applicants were not given a receipt or any other document evidencing the impounding of the vehicle. 19. The car remained impounded by the police for the duration of the preliminary investigation against the first applicant as physical evidence of the offence. 20. On 9 November 1994 the person from whom the car had allegedly been stolen on 14 October 1991 requested possession of the vehicle. 21. The question of returning the vehicle to the second and third applicants was raised by the first applicant in his complaints regarding the length of the criminal proceedings lodged with the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office on 3 April 1995, the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office on 19 October 1999 and the Chief Prosecutor in September 1999. No action was taken in response to any of them. 22. In its decision of 20 October 1999 to terminate the criminal proceedings against the first applicant the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office noted that no protocol or other document existed to show “who, when, why and how” the vehicle of the second and third applicants had been seized and impounded. Nevertheless, the Prosecution Office ordered that the car be handed over to the person from whom it had allegedly been stolen on 14 October 1991 because it considered that, inter alia, on the basis of the investigative procedures performed during the preliminary investigation she was the owner of the vehicle. The applicants appealed against the decision in respect of the order to hand over the car to another person. 23. On an unspecified date the police handed over the car of the second and third applicants to the person from whom it had allegedly been stolen. 24. In a decision of 10 November 1999 the Pazardzhik Regional Prosecution Office upheld the decision of the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office on grounds similar to those contained in the latter’s decision. The applicants appealed further. 25. On 18 November 1999 the Plovdiv Appellate Prosecution Office quashed the above decisions of the lower-level Prosecution Offices. It found, inter alia, that it was not within their competencies to determine the ownership of the vehicle and, in view of the termination of the preliminary investigation against the first applicant, the car had to be returned to the persons from whom it had been seized. It further found that the seizure of the vehicle and the resulting impounding had been unlawful because at the time the seizure had been made no protocol to that effect had been executed. The person to whom the car had been handed over appealed against the decision. 26. In a decision of 10 March 2000 the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office upheld the decision of the Plovdiv Appellate Prosecution Office on grounds similar to those contained in the latter’s decision. 27. The car was returned to the second and third applicants on 19 May 2000. As a result of the period of impounding it had been damaged – its paintwork had deteriorated and the radiator was cracked. Parts of the car were also missing, such as two spark plugs and cables, the left headlight, the spare tyre, the indicators, the cover of the right back brake light, the door handles and other things. They estimated the damage to be worth around 100 Bulgarian levs (approximately 51 euros). The first applicant, who signed the protocol of transfer, made a reservation that he would make a further assessment of the damage caused to the vehicle and that a subsequent claim might be filed against the District Prosecution Office in that respect. 28. The second and third applicants did not initiate any action to seek compensation for the alleged damage caused to the vehicle.

4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Logatec. 5. On 21 May 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against J.P. for fraud, alleging that on 21 August 1996 he had lent J. P. 1.000 DEM that J. P. never returned. 6. On 27 January 1999 the Ljubljana District Attorney’s Office lodged charges against J. P. with the Ljubljana District Court for several offences of fraud, including the one relating to the applicant. 7. On an undefined date in 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against J. P. 8. At a hearing held on 30 October 2000 before the Ljubljana District Court the applicant submitted his pecuniary claim for damages in the criminal proceedings. 9. On 11 June 2001 the applicant withdrew his civil claim and stated that he would submit a pecuniary claim for damages in the criminal proceedings. 10. On 20 December 2004, after hearings had been held on 22 September 2004, 27 October 2004, 23 November 2004, 10 December 2004, the Ljubljana District Court found the defendant J. P. guilty of several offences of fraud. As regards the offence relating to the applicant, the District Court rejected the charges due to the expiry of the absolute period of limitation and accordingly dismissed his pecuniary claims. 11. On 22 February 2007 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 12. On 15 October 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal on the basis that the applicant had no standing with regard to the proceedings he was complaining of.

8. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Gaziantep. The application concerns the alleged abduction and ill-treatment of Cemal Uçar, the applicant’s son, by unknown persons and his death in Diyarbakır E-type prison. At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Cemal Uçar was 26 years old. The facts surrounding the detention and death of the applicant’s son are disputed between the parties. 9. On 5 October 1999 at around 11 a.m. Cemal Uçar left his house to buy water. Four plain-clothes persons carrying weapons and radios attempted to abduct him. Cemal Uçar tried to run away. However, he was caught behind his house. These persons told him that they were policemen. He was then blindfolded and put in a vehicle. The applicant claims that a neighbour witnessed the abduction. According to this witness, Cemal Uçar resisted arrest but was dragged into a dark red car. After being driven around for some time Cemal Uçar was taken to an unknown location. 10. Between 11 and 26 October 1999, the applicant filed petitions with the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and the Diyarbakır public prosecutor. He requested that the authorities carry out an investigation into the abduction of Cemal Uçar and that he be informed of his son’s whereabouts. 11. Between 5 October and 2 November 1999 Cemal Uçar was detained by the kidnappers. He was kept blindfolded, deprived of food and was subjected to electric shocks. 12. On 2 November 1999 the kidnappers took Cemal Uçar to the city stadium in Diyarbakır and left him outside. A balaclava was put over his head and he was made to lie on the ground. The kidnappers told him that they would send the police shortly. 13. On 11 October 1999, after having received the applicant’s petition, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor requested the security directorate to examine the allegations. He took statements from the applicant concerning the alleged abduction of Cemal Uçar. 14. On 22 November 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor sent letters to the public prosecutor’s office in Nusaybin, the Security Directorate, the Gendarme Command and the Population Office in Diyarbakır, requesting these offices to conduct an investigation. 15. On 26 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate reported to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that Cemal Uçar had been taken into police custody on 2 November 1999 by police officers from the Diyarbakır Anti‑Terror Branch and that on 10 November 1999 his detention on remand had been ordered after he had been brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 16. On 29 November 1999 the deputy chief of police in Diyarbakır notified the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that on 24 November 1999 Cemal Uçar had committed suicide in Diyarbakır E-type prison. 17. On 10 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of the applicant’s allegations. 18. On 23 December 1999 the decision of 10 December 1999 was served on the applicant. 19. On 2 November 1999, at 3.30 a.m., within 3 to 5 minutes after the kidnappers had left, police arrived at the stadium and arrested Cemal Uçar. The police officers found a forged identity card in Cemal Uçar’s pocket. It had been placed there by his kidnappers. He was then taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital and examined by a doctor who noted that there were several injuries on various parts of his body. 20. On 10 November 1999 Cemal Uçar was forced by the police to sign a statement, according to which he had been responsible for the organisation of Hizbullah activities in Diyarbakır. 21. On 11 November 1999 Cemal Uçar, along with nine other persons, was taken to a medical expert who noted that none of the ten persons had sustained any injuries. 22. On the same day, Cemal Uçar made statements before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and denied the truth of the statements taken from him on 10 November 1999 by the police. Subsequently, he was taken to the Diyarbakır State Security Court before which he repeated the statements that he had made to the public prosecutor. The court ordered his detention on remand. 23. On 2 November 1999, at around 3.15 a.m., in the course of a routine police check, Cemal Uçar was seen sitting in front of the city stadium. As he appeared suspicious, the police officers asked him to show them his identity card. A forged identity card was seized and Cemal Uçar was taken into custody. 24. On 4 November 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court extended Cemal Uçar’s custody period for two days. On 6 November 1999 the period was extended for a further six days by the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 25. In his statement to the police dated 10 November 1999, Cemal Uçar acknowledged his involvement in Hizbullah activities in Diyarbakır. 26. On 11 November 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered his detention on remand. Cemal Uçar was then transferred to Diyarbakır E‑type prison. 27. After being transferred to Diyarbakır E-type prison, the applicant was placed in a cell where he remained for eleven days. 28. On 24 November 1999 Cemal Uçar died in Diyarbakır E-type prison. 29. In a letter dated 27 September 2000, the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that the applicant believed that police officers had killed his son. In their submissions of 15 September 2005, the representatives claimed that Cemal Uçar could have been killed by other inmates of the ward where Cemal Uçar had been detained. 30. On 24 November 1999 during the regular morning inspection, at around 8.15 a.m., Cemal Uçar was discovered by prison officers hanging from a bunk bed by a belt in ward no. 1 in Diyarbakır E-type prison. The prison officers called the prison doctor who established that Cemal Uçar was dead. They drafted a report immediately after the incident which stated that Cemal Uçar had been hung by a belt. They then informed the prison director and his deputy. 31. On the same day, at 9.30 a.m., the public prosecutor, the prison director, his deputy and one prison officer prepared a further report describing the ward in which the applicant’s son had died. 32. At 11.30 a.m. a further report was drafted by technical police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. 33. Subsequently, an autopsy was carried out on the deceased. According to the autopsy report, no indication of ill-treatment, such as scars or bruises, was identified on the corpse. The report revealed that the cause of death was mechanical asphyxia resulting from suspension. 34. On the same day, statements were taken from the three prison officers who had found the body of Cemal Uçar and from the two other inmates of the ward in which Cemal Uçar had been found dead. 35. On 2 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute, finding that Cemal Uçar had committed suicide and that there was no offence to prosecute. 36. On the same day, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court issued an additional decision not to prosecute in respect of the charges against Cemal Uçar, given the latter’s demise. 37. The parties submitted various documents with a view to substantiating their claims. These documents, in so far as they are relevant, may be summarised as follows. 38. The following information is disclosed in the documents submitted by the Government. (a) Statement of the applicant taken by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor on 11 October 1999 39. The applicant maintained before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that his son had been abducted, that he did not know whether the persons who had abducted his son had been police officers and that he feared for his son’s life. (b) Letter dated 11 October 1999 from the Diyarbakır public prosecutor to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate 40. The Diyarbakır public prosecutor informed the security directorate of the alleged abduction of Cemal Uçar and requested that an investigation be conducted into his disappearance. (c) Letters dated 22 November 1999 from the Diyarbakır public prosecutor to the Nusaybin public prosecutor, the Diyarbakır Security Directorate, the Diyarbakır Gendarmerie Command and the Nusaybin Population Office 41. On 22 November 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor sent letters to the public prosecutor’s office in Nusaybin, the Security Directorate, the Gendarme Command and the Population Office in Diyarbakır, requesting these offices to conduct an investigation and transmit certain information regarding Cemal Uçar. (d) Letters dated 26 and 29 November 1999 from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor 42. On 26 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate reported to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that Cemal Uçar had been taken into police custody on 2 November 1999 by police officers from the Diyarbakır Anti‑Terror Branch, and that on 10 November 1999 his detention on remand had been ordered after he had been brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 43. By a further letter dated 29 November 1999, the deputy chief of police in Diyarbakır notified the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that on 24 November 1999 Cemal Uçar had committed suicide in Diyarbakır E‑type prison. (e) Decision taken on 10 December 1999 not to prosecute 44. On 10 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of the applicant’s allegations, finding that Cemal Uçar had been taken into police custody and, consequently, no offence had been committed or offender sought. On 23 December 1999 the decision of 10 December 1999 was served on the applicant. (f) Statement of Cemal Uçar taken by police on 10 November 1999 45. In his statement to the police dated 10 November 1999, Cemal Uçar acknowledged his involvement in Hizbullah activities in Diyarbakır. (g) Medical reports dated 2 and 11 November 1999 46. On 2 November 1999, following his arrest, Cemal Uçar was taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital and examined by a doctor who noted the following: “An abrasion on the nose, scars on the right wrist, right hand and left foot, an oedema on the right foot and injuries to various parts of the body have been identified...” 47. On 11 November 1999 Cemal Uçar, along with nine other persons, was taken to a medical expert in a health clinic in Diyarbakır who noted that none of the ten persons had sustained any injuries. (h) Petition dated 11 November 1999 by Cemal Uçar addressed to the directorate of Diyarbakır E‑type prison 48. On 11 November 1999 Cemal Uçar requested to be placed in the same prison ward as the other persons who were charged with membership of the Hizbullah. (i) Reports dated 24 November 1999, drawn up by prison officers in Diyarbakır E-type prison 49. According to two reports drawn up by prison officers, on 24 November 1999, during the regular morning inspection at around 8.15 a.m., Cemal Uçar was discovered by prison officers hanging from a bunk bed by means of a belt. The prison officers called the prison doctor who established that Cemal Uçar was dead. They then informed the prison director and his deputy. (j) On-site inspection report, dated 24 November 1999 50. On 24 November 1999, at 9.30 a.m., the public prosecutor, the prison director, his deputy and a prison officer prepared a further report describing the ward in which the applicant’s son had died. According to this second report, there were six bunk beds in the 36 m² ward where Cemal Uçar was kept. One of these six beds was turned upright so that it could be used as a wardrobe. The deceased was hanging from the upright bunk bed by a blue belt. There were two pillows, a bottle of water and two glasses placed under his feet. There was no sign of a struggle in the ward, such as broken objects or traces of blood. (k) Scene of incident report, sketch plan, photographs and a film of the scene of the incident, dated 24 November 1999 51. At 11.30 a.m. a report was drafted by technical police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. They established that Cemal Uçar had committed suicide by hanging himself from a bunk bed, positioned vertically, by means of a black belt. They took photographs of the scene of the incident, drew a plan and filmed the ward with a video camera. (l) Body examination and autopsy report, dated 24 November 1999 52. An autopsy was carried out on the deceased at Diyarbakır State Hospital by Dr Lokman Eğilmez, the director of the Diyarbakır Forensic Medical Branch Office. According to the examination of the body and autopsy report, no indication of ill-treatment, such as scars or bruises, was identified on the corpse. At the end of the examination, Dr Lokman Eğilmez concluded that the cause of death was mechanical asphyxia resulting from suspension. (m) Statements, dated 24 November 1999 and taken by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, of three prison officers, H.M., A.T., and M.Y.S., as well as two inmates of the ward, S.K. and E.F., where Cemal Uçar was found dead 53. According to the documents submitted to the Court, the prison officers testified that Cemal Uçar had taken breakfast at around 6.45 a.m. and that at around 8.15 a.m. they had found him dead during the inspection of the ward. One of the officers stated that the other inmates were asleep when they arrived at the scene of incident. The officers stated that they then informed the prison authorities. The two inmates stated that they had been woken up at around 8 a.m. by a noise in the ward and had found that Cemal Uçar had hung himself and that prison officers had been in the ward. They both testified that Cemal Uçar had been depressed and had talked about killing himself prior to his death. They affirmed that Cemal Uçar had talked about his previous suicide attempts during his detention in police custody. (n) Decisions dated 2 December 1999 not to prosecute issued by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court 54. On 2 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute, finding that Cemal Uçar had committed suicide and that there was no offence to prosecute. 55. On the same day, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court issued an additional non-prosecution decision in respect of the charges against Cemal Uçar, given the latter’ demise. 56. The following information appears from documents submitted by the applicant. (a) The applicant’s petitions submitted to the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and the Diyarbakır public prosecutor 57. In his petition dated 11 October 1999 addressed to the public prosecutor at the State Security Court, the applicant submitted that his son had been arrested by persons claiming to be police officers. He requested the authorities to inform him whether his son had been taken into police custody. On the same day, after having been notified that Cemal Uçar had not been taken into police custody, the applicant lodged a further petition with the public prosecutor’s office in Diyarbakır, requesting the authorities to ascertain the whereabouts of his son. 58. In his second petition dated 26 October 1999, addressed to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, the applicant repeated his allegation concerning his son’s abduction. The applicant further stated that two plain-clothes police officers had gone to his son’s house two days after the abduction and that, on the same day, a plain-clothes police officer had gone to his house, searching for his son. The applicant contended that he had been unable to obtain information about his son from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. He requested the public prosecutor’s office to ascertain his son’s whereabouts. (b) Letter dated 2 November 1999 from the head of the Organisation for Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed People (Mazlum-Der), Mr Yılmaz Ensaroğlu, to the Ministry of the Interior 59. In his letter, Mr Ensaroğlu informed the Minister of the Interior of the disappearance of Cemal Uçar and requested that an investigation be conducted. (c) Statements made on 11 October 1999 by Cemal Uçar before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and the Diyarbakır State Security Court 60. In his statements to the public prosecutor, Cemal Uçar claimed that he had been kidnapped and taken somewhere close to the Diyarbakır prison. There he had been tortured by the kidnappers, who said they were working for Mahmut Yıldırım, an individual also known as “Yeşil”, who carried out unlawful acts in the south-east in the 1990s and whose activities were allegedly known to the police and the Turkish intelligence service. He denied the truth of the statements taken from him by the police. He maintained that he had been forced to sign them. 61. In his statements before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, Cemal Uçar repeated the statements that he had made to the public prosecutor. (d) Report dated 2 November 1999 of house search and seizure 62. According to the report drafted at 5.45 a.m. on 2 November 1999 about the search conducted in Cemal Uçar’s house, the house was searched in the course of a police operation carried out against the Hizbullah and seven books were found. This report was signed by eight police officers and Cemal Uçar. (e) Statement by Mr İ. Sağlam concerning the abduction and death of Cemal Uçar 63. Mr İ. Sağlam stated that Cemal Uçar sent a letter to his family, informing them that he had been taken into police custody and, subsequently, detained in Diyarbakır E-type prison. After having received the letter, the applicant went to the prison and saw his son. Subsequently, he asked Mr İ. Sağlam to visit his son. On an unspecified date, Mr İ. Sağlam visited Cemal Uçar, who maintained that he had been kidnapped by security forces and that he had made statements before the public prosecutor about his abduction. Cemal Uçar refrained from informing the public prosecutor about the place where had been kept for almost a month as he feared for himself and his family. Mr İ. Sağlam further stated that he did not have the impression that Cemal Uçar was disturbed psychologically. However, he had feared the possibility of being taken to the security directorate again. (f) Expert reports dated 30 August 2005 of Dr A.M. Anscombe 64. Two reports were prepared on behalf of the applicant by Dr A.M. Anscombe, a consultant forensic pathologist practising in the United Kingdom. The applicant instructed Mr Anscombe to review the autopsy report on Cemal Uçar, the police reports on the inspection and verification of the scene of the incident, the plan of the ward, the video and photocopies of photographs of the scene, with the deceased in situ, and to comment on the adequacy of the autopsy examination. 65. In his reports Dr Anscombe maintained that his main criticism was the absence of autopsy photographs. He stated that autopsy photographs were a standard part of any forensic post-mortem examination since without photographs, one was reliant upon the description by the pathologist and there was no other means of corroborating what the pathologist had found or described. He further maintained that the autopsy report would be considered to be inadequate in the United Kingdom because of its brevity and lack of detail. As regards the cause of death of Cemal Uçar, Dr Anscombe stated that there was nothing in the disposition of the body, the manner of dress, and disposition of the scene which raised suspicion of anything other than suicide. He however opined that it was possible that the deceased could have been suspended by another person or persons, the assessment of which likelihood in turn rested on the accuracy and reliability of the autopsy report. He concluded that that was why an adequate autopsy description with documentation, including photographs, was so important.

5. The applicant was born in 1926 and lived in İzmir. 6. On 23 February 1998 the applicant bought a plot of land (plot no. 536 in the Ulucak village, in the Menemen district of İzmir) from the heirs of V.G. 7. On 13 July 1999 the Ministry of Agriculture (“the Ministry”) brought an action before the Menemen Civil Court, requesting the annulment of the title deed of the applicant to plot no. 536 and its registration in the Treasury's name, claiming that it had had actual possession of this land since 1966. The Ministry primarily relied on Article 38 of the Expropriation Act (Law no. 2942). The Ministry also alleged that an expropriation had been effected in relation to the said land in 1966 and that V.G. had received compensation for it. However, the land register had not been amended due to an administrative error. 8. On 20 December 2000 the Menemen Civil Court accepted the request of the Ministry of Agriculture and ordered that the land be registered in favour of the Treasury in accordance with Article 38 of Law no. 2942. In its judgment, the first-instance court noted that the Ministry had been in actual possession of this land for more than twenty years and that the applicant had been aware of this fact when he had bought the plot. 9. The applicant appealed. 10. On 17 September 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 20 December 2000. 11. The applicant requested rectification of the decision of 17 September 2001. 12. On 24 December 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request. 13. On 4 January 2002 the Court of Cassation's decision was served on the applicant. 14. On 10 April 2003 the Constitutional Court annulled Article 38 of Law no. 2942.

5. The applicant was born in 1956 and is currently detained in Giurgiu Prison. 6. For the last nine years the applicant had been convicted several times and he had been detained in various prisons. For certain periods of time he had been held in the Jilava and Rahova prison hospitals. 7. On 1 November 2007 the applicant was convicted by the Arad County Court on two counts of robbery and theft and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered the applicant’s committal to the psychiatric section of the Bucharest Jilava Prison Hospital until his recovery. 8. In his application forms and letters sent to the Court since 2009, the applicant complained of the severe overcrowding he had had to endure in Galaţi Prison, where thirteen to fifteen detainees were held in a cell of between 20 and 24 sq. m, as well as in Rahova and Jilava Prisons. 9. The applicant also alleged that the quality of food and drinking water had been very poor in these prisons, that he had not always been served a diet in accordance with his Muslim religious beliefs and that most of the time he had been starving as the portions had not been sufficient. 10. In all three prisons hot water had only been provided for short periods of time in which there had not been enough time to brush his teeth. Furthermore, in Jilava Prison there had not been enough cold water provided. 11. The applicant further alleged that, although he had no financial resources and had had no family to help him, the prison authorities in all three prisons had failed to provide him with the necessary clothes, toilet paper, soap or toiletries to brush his teeth. 12. In Galaţi Prison the applicant was held for almost eight months in six different cells including in the infirmary and the “hunger strike” (refuz de hrană) cell. The cells in this prison are approximately 24 sq. m with a maximum of fifteen beds. The applicant shared the cells with a maximum of eleven other prisoners (2.1 sq. m of space per person, including the space occupied by beds and other furniture). 13. Cold water was available at various intervals for a total of seven hours per day and was not available between 9 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. The quality of the drinking water was certified by the Galaţi Public Health Authority. 14. The applicant received a diet in accordance with his religious beliefs and the composition of the daily menu was in line with the regulations. 15. Toiletries were provided as the budget allowed. During the period of almost eight months that the applicant spent in Galaţi Prison he received the following: two tubes of toothpaste, six razors, four tubes of shaving cream, nine bars of poor quality soap, six rolls of toilet paper, two toothbrushes and washing powder. 16. Throughout his detention in Galaţi Prison the applicant received no visits and was considered unfit for work. He did not have any income. (b) Rahova Prison 17. The applicant was held in Rahova Prison for six months and four days. He was placed in cells measuring 21 sq. m which he shared with nine other prisoners (2.1 sq. m of space per person including beds and other furniture). The cells had bathrooms equipped with two sinks, a shower and a toilet. Cold water was constantly available and hot water was twice per week following a schedule. 18. Food was prepared in accordance with the standards and regulations. Renovation of the food preparation and storage areas were under way when the Government’s observations were being submitted. 19. The Government submitted that upon their placement in a detention facility, prisoners received one set of bed linen. 20. Throughout his detention in Rahova Prison the applicant received no visits, was considered unfit for work and did not have any income. (c) Jilava Prison 21. The applicant was detained in Jilava Prison for twenty-two days. For a few days he shared a cell measuring 40.28 sq. m with twenty-seven prisoners; there were thirty beds as well as other items of furniture (1.43 sq. m of space per person including beds and other furniture). This cell was equipped with two toilets and two sinks where cold water was constantly available. The rest of the time he was held in the infirmary where he had approximately 6 sq. m of personal space. 22. Hot water was provided in common shower facilities according to a pre-established schedule for two hours on Mondays and Fridays for half of the prison and Tuesdays and Saturdays for the other half. In one of the infirmary wards, where the applicant spent fourteen days, two showers with hot water were available for up to seven prisoners, for the same periods as the general schedule (two hours per week). 23. During the twenty-two days he spent in this prison, the applicant received one roll of toilet paper, a razor and one tube of shaving cream. 24. The Government alleged that on 17 May 2013 the applicant also received clothing that he could use during his stay in this prison but they submitted no documents in support of this claim. 25. The applicant received the “Muslim menu” in accordance with the internal regulations. 26. The applicant had access to the exercise yard for six hours per day. 27. Throughout his detention in Jilava Prison the applicant received no visits and did not have any income. 28. On 11 June 2013 the applicant was transferred to Giurgiu Prison. 29. The applicant lodged numerous complaints with the prison authorities or the post-sentencing judge outlining his dissatisfaction with the overcrowding, the poor quality of the drinking water or the quality and quantity of the food he received. He asked on several occasions to be placed in a single occupancy cell and to be given certain foods such as fried eggs or fried potatoes. 30. These complaints were always rejected as being ill-founded. 31. On 30 September 2009, the Bucharest District Court rejected with final effect the applicant’s complaint concerning the lack of adequate provision of drinking water in Jilava Prison, reasoning that this situation was a result of budgetary constraints. Another complaint lodged with the delegate judge while the applicant was being held in Rahova Prison has on its reverse side the note “Transferred”. 32. The complaints about overcrowding were always solved with the conclusion that the assignment of detainees to sections and cells was a function of the prison’s administration and placement in individual cells was not possible and was not allowed by law. 33. On several occasions the applicant complained to the post-sentencing judge that the food served in prison was of very poor quality and the portions were not adequate. All his complaints were rejected as ill-founded as the post-sentencing judge considered that the applicant’s allegations had been contradicted by the information submitted by the authorities of the prisons concerned. 34. On 7 March 2013 while he was held in Rahova Prison the applicant requested one pair of shoes, two pairs of socks and one tracksuit. A note on the request says that it shall be examined depending on stocks, but there is no subsequent mention of whether the applicant received any of the items requested. 35. On July 2009, following a dental examination in Rahova Prison Hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with periodontitis (I and II degree) and frontal, lateral and terminal edentulism. The doctor prescribed specific periodontitis treatment, a mobile prosthesis and a liquid or semi-liquid diet until the installation of the prosthesis. 36. Since then, the applicant had been taken to see a dentist on numerous occasions upon his requests following bouts of inflammation of the gums or pain. He was consistently prescribed symptomatic treatment with antibiotic or anti-inflammatory drugs. On these occasions the doctors would repeat the prescription for a liquid or semi-liquid diet. 37. In November 2009 the applicant was diagnosed with chronic generalised marginal periodontitis and was prescribed antibiotics, anti-inflammatory drugs and hygienisation of the oral cavity by a dentist within the prison system. On the same occasion he was also diagnosed with inflammation of the salivary glands and surgery was prescribed, which was performed on 28 March 2013. 38. On 11 May 2010 the applicant was diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer and on 11 August 2011 with chronic gastroduodenitis. 39. On 21 July 2011 during a medical examination in Galaţi Prison the applicant, who had been previously diagnosed with several personality disorders, was diagnosed as showing symptoms of paranoia; it was recommended that he be committed to the psychiatric section of the Poarta Albă Prison Hospital. 40. Between 15 and 19 October 2012 the applicant was hospitalised for an acute inflammation of the salivary glands and generalised stomatitis. He was released with a prescription to eat liquid and semi-liquid food, to brush his teeth three times per day, to take antibiotics and to use mouthwash. 41. The applicant had one tooth extracted on 29 November 2012. 42. On 24 February 2014 the applicant was taken to the prison hospital with congestion and swelling of the gums. He was diagnosed with, among other conditions, chronic acute otitis, generalised stomatitis, chronic apical periodontitis, neurovegetative disorders, conjunctivitis and spondylosis. 43. On several occasions the applicant was taken to prison hospitals or to the emergency unit of public hospitals with a broken nose or ribs after having been assaulted by other prisoners. 44. Throughout his detention the applicant refused treatment with drugs or, on a few occasions, to be transported to Rahova Prison Hospital for conditions not related to his dental problems. In November 2011 the applicant, who was in a nervous state, refused to be seen by the prison dentist. On 3 February 2014 the applicant refused to have a tooth extracted. 45. On 15 October 2009 the applicant complained before the prison authorities and the post-sentencing judge that he was not receiving the liquid and semi-liquid diet prescribed by the doctor. On 3 November 2009 the post-sentencing judge in Rahova Prison rejected the complaint, agreeing with the prison authorities that there was no prescription from a doctor for such a diet in the applicant’s medical file. Another similar complaint lodged by the applicant in January 2013 had been rejected by the post-sentencing judge for the same reason. 46. On 21 May 2012, in August 2012 and on 10 September 2012 the applicant complained to the prison administration that he had toothache and that he could not eat as he had not been given a liquid diet, as requested. No replies to these complaints could be found in the applicant’s prison file submitted by the Government. 47. In January 2013 the applicant complained before the post-sentencing judge of the poor quality of the food served in prison; the vegetables were undercooked; he received bones without meat. He further complained that he had not been given the liquid diet prescribed by the doctors and that he had thus constantly received food that he could not chew and eat. The prison administration averred before the judge that no special diet had been prescribed to the applicant by a doctor and that the food served in prison was in accordance with the regulations and within the limits of the budget of 4.06 Romanian lei per prisoner per day (approximately 1 euro). On 8 January 2013 the post-sentencing judge rejected the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded, considering that the food received by the applicant had been in accordance with the regulations and the budget. 48. In March 2013 the applicant complained again before the post-sentencing judge. He alleged that, due to his dental problems, he could not eat the food served in prison. He mentioned that the meat was not cooked through and very often during transport he had received raw, unsliced bacon and biscuits that he could not eat. On 21 March 2013 the post-sentencing judge rejected the applicant’s complaint because the facts described by him had been refuted by the prison authorities. At that time, no doctor had prescribed that the applicant be given a liquid or semi-liquid diet. On 14 May 2013 the Bucharest District Court rejected this complaint with final effect holding that the prison menus were prepared and administered in accordance with the internal regulations and within the limits of the budget. 49. On 16 and 25 June, 23 December 2013 and 12 and 24 March 2014 the applicant complained to the prison administration of toothache and requested treatment for his periodontitis. The authorities replied to these complaints that the doctor was on holiday and that an appointment would be scheduled in the future. 50. According to the applicant, on 14 February 2013 when he was being transported to an infirmary outside the prison, he was ill-treated by a prison guard escorting him. 51. Immediately after the incident the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the prison guard for ill-treatment and abusive behaviour. 52. On 27 November 2013 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest District Court issued a decision not to commence criminal proceedings in the case. According to a copy of the prison’s correspondence logbook, as submitted by the Government, the applicant received a copy of the decision on 12 December 2013. 53. The applicant did not contest this decision before the superior prosecutor as provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The first applicant, Mr Ivan Dvořáček, was born in 1942. The second applicant, Mrs Jozefa Dvořáčková, was born in 1945. They are married and live in Bratislava. They filed the application also on behalf of Ms Ivana Dvořáčková, their daughter. 6. Ms Ivana Dvořáčková was born in 1981 with Down Syndrome (trisomy 21) and a damaged heart and lungs. She was in the care of a specialised health institution in Bratislava. In 1986 she was examined in the Centre of Paediatric Cardiology in Prague‑Motole where it was established that, due to post-natal pathological developments, her heart chamber defect could no longer be remedied. 7. On 1987 she underwent vascular surgery in Prague. However, the doctors considered that comprehensive heart surgery with a view to eliminating the cardio-vascular defect was no longer feasible. A conservative treatment was recommended and the medical prognosis was that her heart or lungs would fail in the second or third decade of her life. 8. Ms Ivana Dvořáčková died of heart failure on 14 March 2004 at the age of 23. 9. On 26 October 1987 Ms Ivana Dvořáčková and her parents instituted proceedings in the Bratislava I District Court. They claimed compensation for damage on the ground that Ms Ivana Dvořáčková’s health had been seriously and irreparably damaged as a result of shortcomings in the post-natal treatment she had received in a hospital to which the defendant was the legal successor. In particular, on the basis of the aforementioned examination in the Centre of Paediatric Cardiology in Prague, they alleged that the health institution in Bratislava had failed to diagnose in time the extent of the damage to her health and to ensure appropriate and timely treatment of the defect. 10. The District Court held eleven hearings in the case and dismissed the action on 9 August 1990. On 19 June 1991 the Regional Court in Bratislava quashed that judgment. The case file was returned to the District Court on 5 August 1991. 11. In 1994 and 1995 the District Court took various procedural steps. It scheduled two hearings in 1997. 12. On 2 March 1998 the District Court appointed an expert, who submitted an opinion on 17 November 1999. 13. Another hearing in the case was scheduled for 3 October 2000. The plaintiffs requested an adjournment but the District Court dismissed their request on 18 May 2001. On 30 November 2001 the Regional Court quashed that decision. After obtaining further evidence, the District Court stayed the proceedings on 19 March 2002 at the applicants’ request. On 13 June 2003 the plaintiffs requested that the proceedings be resumed. 14. On 11 December 2003 the District Court held a hearing at which Ms Ivana Dvořáčková challenged the expert. 15. On 20 April 2004, after their daughter had died, the first and second applicants asked the District Court to proceed with their case and determine whether the defendant was liable for damage to their daughter’s health. They indicated that the question arose whether her death had been caused by shortcomings in her medical treatment and that they intended to claim damages in that respect. On 5 May 2004 the first and second applicants specified their claims for damages with the District Court. 16. On 7 June 2004 the District Court dismissed the request for the exclusion of the expert. In a separate decision, which was rectified on 30 August 2004, it discontinued the proceedings. On 30 September 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court varied the first-instance court’s decision in that it discontinued the proceedings only to the extent that they concerned part of Ms Dvořáčková’s claim for compensation which under the relevant law could not pass to her heirs. The appellate court remitted the case to the District Court for further examination. 17. On 26 May 2005 the District Court adjourned the case as the defendant’s representative did not attend the hearing. 18. A further hearing was held on 28 June 2005. The first applicant stated that he challenged the three expert opinions included in the file as the experts involved either lacked the requisite qualifications or were biased. The District Court decided to obtain another expert opinion. A hearing scheduled for 20 March 2006 had to be adjourned as the judge was ill. 19. After the case had been transferred to a different judge, a hearing was held on 24 April 2006. The first applicant urged the court to determine the case. He maintained that the evidence available was sufficient and that obtaining another expert opinion was not necessary. The judge decided to obtain a fourth expert opinion in the case. In a decision of 25 May 2006 the District Court instructed the Medical Faculty of the P.J. Šafárik University in Košice to submit an opinion on the relevant issues within 40 days. 20. On 24 July 2008 the Bratislava I District Court asked the Hradec Králové District Court (Czech Republic) for assistance in obtaining a further opinion by two Czech medical experts. 21. In January 2009 the parties informed the Court that the proceedings were pending. 22. On 4 March 2004 the Constitutional Court held that the Bratislava I District Court had violated Ms I. Dvořáčková’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It found that the case was not particularly complex and that the plaintiff had not by her conduct contributed to the length of the proceedings in a substantial manner. The decision stated that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Court, totalling approximately six years. 23. The Constitutional Court ordered the Bratislava I District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to pay to the plaintiff, within two months from its judgment becoming final, the equivalent of 3,452 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction. It also ordered the Bratislava I District Court to reimburse the plaintiff’s costs related to the constitutional proceedings within fifteen days. 24. On 21 April 2004 the parents of Ms I. Dvořáčková, represented by an advocate, lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of their right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. 25. They submitted further arguments and documents subsequently. In particular, in two letters which they personally sent by registered mail to the Constitutional Court and its President on 23 July 2004, they alleged that the inactivity of the District Court amounted to a denial of justice and that Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the Convention had also been violated. As regards Article 2 in particular, they submitted that their daughter had died as a result of medical negligence. The applicants referred to the States’ obligation to protect the life of persons within their jurisdiction and to “apply all civil-law remedies, such as compensation for damage, in cases of medical negligence”. 26. On 11 October 2004 the applicants appointed a different advocate to represent them in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. In a submission of 21 October 2004 the advocate asked the Constitutional Court to have regard to all earlier submissions in the case and to consider the scope of the breach of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by both the Constitution and the Convention. At the request of the Constitutional Court the advocate submitted, on 18 February 2005, further information about the scope of the proceedings complained of and about the complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution. He indicated in his letter that in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court the plaintiffs “alleged a breach of their right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delays and that they also complained of interference with their human rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights”. 27. On 23 May 2005 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint of unjustified delays in the proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court. It stated that the plaintiffs had claimed damages in the action brought on 26 October 1987 and therefore had standing as a party to the proceedings complained of. 28. To the extent that the plaintiffs complained of “interference with their human rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights” the Constitutional Court rejected their complaint as not complying with the statutory requirements. In particular, the plaintiffs had not specified the rights which they alleged had been violated, submitted any arguments in support of their allegation or provided draft wording for the operative part of the decision they sought to obtain from the Constitutional Court with respect to that complaint. 29. On 11 October 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the plaintiffs’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and granted the equivalent of EUR 1,287 each to the first and second applicants as just satisfaction payable within two months. It also ordered the Bratislava I District Court to reimburse the costs of the constitutional proceedings to the applicants (the equivalent of EUR 807). 30. The Constitutional Court noted that the proceedings in issue concerned a claim for compensation for serious damage to the health of Ms Ivana Dvořáčková. That claim was based on allegedly incorrect medical diagnoses as a result of which I. Dvořáčková’s lung and heart had been damaged to the extent that she had been permanently handicapped as from 7 April 1987. Subsequently the plaintiffs had extended the claim to include, inter alia, compensation for the costs of medical treatment and care for their daughter, expenses relating to her burial and damages for unjustified interference with their privacy. 31. The Constitutional Court found that the case was not particularly complex and that the overall duration of the proceedings could not be imputed to the plaintiffs. In addition to the delays in the proceedings to which it had pointed in its judgment of 4 March 2004 (see paragraph 22 above), the Constitutional Court found that the case had been with an expert for eighteen months. During the subsequent period the District Court had not proceeded with the case effectively with the exception of a period of approximately one year between March 2002 and April 2003 when the proceedings had been stayed.

5. The applicants are Mr Vladimir Popov and Mrs Yekaterina Popov née Yakovenko, nationals of Kazakhstan, born in 1983 and 1982 respectively, and their two minor children, who were born in France on 7 April 2004 and 17 March 2007. 6. The applicants were born in Kazakhstan. They were married on 18 June 2002. In the applicants’ submission they were repeatedly persecuted in their country on account of their Russian origin and their affiliation to the Russian Orthodox Church. On 9 May 2002 the applicant’s father was beaten up in the street and required treatment in hospital. The family filed a complaint and on 5 June 2002 the applicants received, at their house, a visit from unknown individuals of Kazakh origin who asked them to withdraw their complaint and threatened them with reprisals. On 15 July 2002 an incendiary device was thrown into their home through the window, starting a fire, and they were rescued by a neighbour. Following that incident, the applicant’s father left Kazakhstan on 16 August 2002. 7. On 29 September 2002, when the second applicant was returning home, Kazakh police officers stopped her in the street and questioned her about her father. They took her away and she was beaten up. They tried to shut her in a vehicle and threatened to rape and kill her. She managed to escape. The next day, she went to the casualty department in the town of Taraz to have her injuries recorded and treated. On 2 October 2002 her mother came home having also been beaten up by Kazakh policemen who were looking for her husband. After that incident they moved to the country. 8. On 28 November 2002 the second applicant was again assaulted. She had gone shopping and did not return until the next day, covered in bruises and blood. Several days later she lost the child she was carrying. She then decided to leave the country and entered France on 15 December 2002 on a two-week visa. After her departure, the applicant, who had filed a complaint, was assaulted by policemen on 10 March 2003. He spent several months in hiding but the authorities found him, confiscated his papers, and threatened to kill him if he did not withdraw his complaint. He too decided to leave the country and joined his wife in France on 19 June 2003. 9. The applicants each filed an asylum application with the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) and obtained residence permits. Their asylum applications were rejected on 20 January 2004 on the ground that their statements were “riddled with inconsistencies”, followed “a stereotyped pattern” and were “unconvincing”. On 31 May 2005 the Refugee Appeals Board dismissed their appeals. 10. On 12 January 2006, having learnt of the murder of the second applicant’s father, after his return to Kazakhstan, the applicants requested a fresh examination of their case by the OFPRA. On 19 January 2006 the OFPRA refused to re-examine the case. On 13 September 2006 the Appeals Board rejected their appeal on the ground that the new fact could not be regarded as established. 11. They subsequently applied for recognition as stateless persons, but the OFPRA rejected their request on 5 April 2007, on the ground, first, that they had not provided evidence that the Kazakh authorities had withdrawn their nationality and they could not lose that nationality purely of their own volition, and, secondly, that they held passports issued by their national authorities that were valid until 2012. On 25 April 2007 the applicants appealed against that rejection before the Nantes Administrative Court. They subsequently dropped their appeal, however, having obtained refugee status in the meantime (see paragraph 27 below). 12. On 21 June 2005 the Ardennes prefecture notified the applicants of its refusal to issue them with residence permits and directed them to leave the country within one month. 13. On 22 November 2005 Mr Popov was arrested during a vehicle check when he was found to be in the country illegally. On the next day he was issued with a removal order and placed in administrative detention in Charleville-Mézières. On 25 November 2005 the liberties and detention judge of the Charleville-Mézières tribunal de grande instance ordered the extension of his detention for fifteen days. On 9 December 2005 the detention was extended for a further fifteen days in order to “enable the enforcement of the removal measure”. 14. On 28 November 2005 the Châlons-en-Champagne Administrative Court rejected Mr Popov’s application for the annulment of the order for his removal to Kazakhstan. On 23 November 2006 the Nancy Administrative Court of Appeal upheld that judgment, finding that he had not adduced any conclusive evidence in support of his allegations that he had been persecuted in his country of origin. 15. The removal order against the first applicant was not enforced, however, and he was released from the detention centre, as no laissez-passer had been issued. 16. On 11 October 2006 it was decided to place the applicants in administrative detention but the prefect of the Ardennes ordered them to reside at a specific address, pursuant to Article L. 513-4 of the Entry and Residence of Aliens and Right of Asylum Code (CESEDA). Two attempts to remove the applicants failed as a result of the mobilisation of a support group. The family was thus released. 17. On 29 January 2007 the Ardennes prefecture rejected a new request for the issuance of a residence permit to the applicants. On the same day, a further decision was delivered imposing on them an obligation to leave the country. On 31 May 2007 the Châlons-en-Champagne Administrative Court dismissed their appeal against that decision. 18. On 25 June 2008 they again applied for residence permits. As the prefecture failed to respond, the applicants challenged the implicit rejection decision before the Nantes Administrative Court. However, having subsequently obtained refugee status, the applicants withdrew their complaint. 19. On 27 August 2007 the applicants and their children, who were then under six months and three years, respectively, were apprehended at the home of the applicant’s mother, who was accommodating them, and taken into police custody. After a long wait, the Maine-et-Loire prefecture ordered their administrative detention in a hotel in Angers. On 28 August 2007 the applicants and their children were transferred to Charles-de-Gaulle airport pending their removal to Kazakhstan. However, the flight scheduled for the early afternoon was cancelled, without the prefecture having been informed, and the removal could not therefore be carried out. It was only in the evening that the applicants and their children were transferred, in a police van, to the administrative detention centre of Rouen‑Oissel. 20. That centre, even though it is mentioned on the list of centres that cater for families, does not have any real leisure or learning area. Whilst one wing is reserved for families and single women, the atmosphere there is distressing and stressful, with a lack of privacy and a high level of tension. Announcements via loud-speakers reverberate throughout the centre and exacerbate the feeling of stress. The Oissel centre, at the time of the applicants’ detention, was not equipped with the basic facilities for the detention of young children (it had metal beds with pointed corners, no cots, just a few toys in the corner of a room, etc.). The only outdoor area is a courtyard, concreted over and with wire netting over the top, and the bedroom windows are covered with a tight grill obscuring the view to the outside ... The eldest child refused to eat in the centre and showed signs of anxiety and stress. The parents had to negotiate with the police to recover their personal belongings, including the milk they had brought for the infant. They were only able to receive one short visit during their detention, as it was not easy to gain access to the centre. 21. On 29 August 2007 the liberties and detention judge of the Rouen tribunal de grande instance ordered the extension of the detention measure for fifteen days, after observing that the maintaining of a family in detention was not in breach of the decree of 30 May 2005 on administrative detention and holding areas and that their transfer to Rouen‑Oissel was not vitiated by any defect. The decision also mentioned the loss of the second applicant’s Kazakh nationality but it was found that this could not justify release, as the Administrative Court alone had jurisdiction to decide if that situation would have any consequences. On 30 August 2007 the Rouen Court of Appeal upheld the extension decision. (b) Second attempt to remove applicants 22. Having been held in the detention centre since 28 August 2007, the applicants were again transferred to Roissy Charles-de-Gaulle airport pending their removal on 11 September 2007, the flight being scheduled for the early afternoon. It did not go ahead, however. The applicants were not taken back to the Rouen-Oissel centre until the evening, without any measure of placement in a detention facility being decided at Roissy during that period. The prefect then applied to the Rouen liberties and detention judge to have the applicants’ detention extended for a further fifteen days, relying solely on the argument that the non-enforcement of the removal order could be attributed to the applicants themselves (CESEDA, Article L. 552-7). The applicants complained about the conditions of their detention and its length, arguing that the authorities had failed to prove that the length of the measure was strictly necessary. 23. On the same day the applicants submitted to the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a request for the suspension of the removal measure. The Court declined to indicate an interim measure in response to that request. 24. On 12 September 2007 the liberties and detention judge found that there was no evidence to show that the applicants had deliberately impeded their removal, because the documents concerning the circumstances of the attempt expressly stated that “no refusal to board the plane was recorded on 11 September 2007”, and he ordered their release, with the obligation to leave France being maintained. The prefect appealed against that decision but without seeking suspensive effect. The applicants were thus released from the detention centre. 25. On 14 September 2007 the Rouen Court of Appeal set aside the liberties and detention judge’s decision and extended the administrative detention measure for fifteen days, finding that it could be seen from certain documents in the file that the applicants had indeed prevented their removal (an e-mail from one of the border police officers mentioning the need for an escort to carry out the removal the next time, in view of Mrs Popov’s reaction). It had been found that the next flight with an escort for the applicants’ removal would not be available before 18 September 2007, and the prefect had not therefore shown a lack of diligence in organising the departure and limiting the length of the detention. He had thus been justified in seeking an extension of the administrative detention pending the organisation of a fresh removal. That decision was not enforced. 26. Before their arrest the applicants had filed a fresh request to be granted refugee status. In a decision of 6 September 2007 the OFPRA rejected the request on account of the very general nature of the alleged facts, finding that this, together with the unlikely claim of blackmail on the part of the Kazakh authorities, precluded the establishment of their veracity. The OFPRA further stated that as the allegation that the applicants had lost their nationality had not been corroborated, the request for re-examination had to be rejected. The applicants appealed against that decision. 27. On 16 July 2009 the National Asylum Tribunal granted the applicants refugee status, finding that the enquiries made by the Ardennes prefecture vis-à-vis the Kazakh authorities, in breach of the confidentiality of asylum applications, had exposed the applicants to danger in the event of their return to Kazakhstan, and that their loss of Kazakh nationality, in August 2007 and April 2008 respectively, whilst not per se constituting persecution, did not, however, preclude the granting of refugee status.

4. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Košice. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 6. On 16 July 1985 the applicant lodged an action with the Vranov nad Topľou District Court seeking division of matrimonial property. 7. In the subsequent period two first-instance judgments of 30 June 1987 and 31 October 1989 were quashed by decisions of the Košice Regional Court of 30 December 1987 and 21 May 1990 an the case was remitted to the District Court. 8. On 20 November 1990 the Košice Regional Court decided that the first-instance judge was biased and on 17 December 1992 it transferred the case to the Prešov District Court for a decision. 9. On 21 October 1998 the applicant challenged the judges of the Prešov District Court. 10. On 5 November 1998 the Regional Court decided that, except for one judge, the judges of the Prešov District Court were not biased. 11. On 24 November 1998 the applicant challenged another first-instance judge. By a decision of the Regional Court of 6 October 1999 the judge was excluded from the case. 12. On 31 August 2001 the Prešov District Court decided to obtain an expert opinion on the value of a real estate. 13. On 17 July 2002 the Prešov Regional Court, following the defendant's and the applicant's appeal, upheld the above decision. 14. On 3 September 2003 the Prešov District Court delivered a judgment. 15. On 21 October 2003 the applicant appealed and challenged another first-instance judge. 16. On 9 February 2005 the Prešov Regional Court decided that the judge was not biased and overturned the first-instance judgment. The decision became final on 11 March 2005. 17. On 7 April 2005 the applicant appealed on points of law. 18. On 28 November 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 19. The applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining that the District Court and the Regional Court had violated his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 20. On 1 March 2006 the Constitutional Court decided that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It also decided that the Prešov Regional Court had not violated the above right. The Constitutional Court awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's costs and expenses.

6. The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in İzmit. 7. On 18 November 1981 the General Directorate of National Water Board (Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü) seized and later expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicant for the construction of a dam. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was deposited with a bank in the name of the applicant on 23 June 1982. However, the expropriation order and the document containing the information about the compensation were not served on the applicant. 8. On 1 May 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Akyaka Civil Court requesting compensation for seizure without an official expropriation (kamulaştırmasız el koyma). The court established that although the applicant was not notified, a de facto expropriation had taken place. 9. After conducting two on-site visits and taking two separate sets of expert reports into consideration, the court established what the then-current value of land would have been had the expropriation not taken place. On 14 October 1999 it awarded the applicant a corresponding in additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate running from 1 May 1998, the date of the applicant's filing of that case. As the compensation amount was based on the then-current value of the land, and not on its 1981 value, the court rejected the applicant's request to run the interest from the date of the seizure. 10. On 10 October 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. On 8 February 2001 the same court rejected a request for rectification. 11. On 24 October 2001 the due amount was paid to the applicant.

6. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Isa Aytamirov, born in 1983. The second applicant is her sister and Isa Aytamirov's aunt. The applicants were born in 1955 and 1960 respectively. The first applicant lives in the town of Argun and the second applicant lives in the village of Novy Tsentoroy, in the Chechen Republic. 7. At the material time the first applicant lived with Isa Aytamirov in the town of Argun, in the Grozny district of Chechnya. The second applicant lived at 36 Gagarina Street, in the village of Novy Tsentoroy, in the Grozny district of Chechnya. Isa Aytamirov frequently stayed at his aunt's place in the village. 8. On the night of 19 February 2003 the second applicant, Isa Aytamirov and other relatives were sleeping in the house in Novy Tsentoroy. There was a power cut in the village that night. As a result of previous bombardments the windows of the second applicant's house were covered with sheets of plastic instead of glass. 9. At about 4 a.m. a group of about thirty Russian servicemen arrived at the second applicant's gate on three armoured personnel carriers (APCs). They climbed over the fence, took the entrance door off its hinges and broke into the house. The intruders were wearing masks and military uniforms; they spoke Russian and Chechen. Using their flashlights, they dispersed into different rooms, pointed their guns at the second applicant and her relatives and ordered them not to move. Then the intruders went into the room where Isa Aytamirov was. They woke him up, pointed their guns at him and took him outside. Isa Aytamirov, barefoot and in his underwear, was taken to a shed in the yard and placed with his hands up against the wall. Meanwhile, Ms M. Dzh., another aunt of Isa Aytamirov, tried to call for help from a window. One of the servicemen ordered her in Chechen to stay quiet. 10. The second applicant and her relatives asked the servicemen to let them go outside. Permission was given only to the second applicant. When she went into the yard, she saw her nephew standing with his hands up against the wall. The second applicant asked the servicemen if she could give them her nephew's passport so they could give it to him. When she had brought it to them they forced her back into the house. Then the second applicant saw the servicemen put Isa Aytamirov into one of the APCs. She tried to follow her nephew and tried to climb on to the APC, but one of the servicemen hit her with a rifle butt and she fell on the ground and lost consciousness. The APCs drove away with Isa Aytamirov in an unknown direction. After that the applicants' relatives went outside and found the second applicant on the ground, unconscious and bleeding. 11. According to the second applicant, the following day she sought medical help at the military hospital in Grozny, where she underwent an X‑Ray of both legs. Subsequently, the second applicant was examined in the Argun town hospital, where her legs were bandaged and then plastered. 12. The description of the events of the night of 19 February 2003 is based on the accounts given to the applicants' representatives by the following witnesses: an account by Ms M. Dzh. given on 23 September 2005; two accounts by the second applicant given on 1 December 2004 and 23 September 2005; an account by Ms T. Dzh. given on 23 September 2005; a joint account by Ms M. and Ms G. given on an unspecified date; a joined account by Ms A.I. and Ms M.K. given on 25 February 2006; and also on two hand-drawn maps of the premises in the Novy Tsentoroy village. 13. The applicants have had no news of Isa Aytamirov since 19 February 2003. 14. The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They submitted that on 19 February 2003 unidentified armed persons entered the house in Novy Tsentoroy, kidnapped Isa Aytamirov and took him away to an unknown destination. The same persons had caused injuries to the second applicant. 15. Immediately after the abduction of Isa Aytamirov his relatives reported the incident to the authorities. 16. On 3 March 2003 the first applicant complained about the abduction of her son to the head of the Argun town administration and asked for assistance in establishing Isa Aytamirov's whereabouts. 17. On 12 March 2003 the first applicant complained about Isa Aytamirov's abduction to the head of the Argun Department of the Interior (the Argun OVD). In her letter she stated that her son had been abducted by a group of armed masked men in military uniforms and requested assistance in the search for him. 18. On 24 March 2003 the first and second applicants complained to the head of the administration of the Chechen Republic and the Envoy of the President of the Russian Federation for Ensuring Human Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic (the Envoy) that at about 4 a.m. on 19 February 2003 a group of servicemen in camouflage uniforms, who had arrived on three APCs, had abducted Isa Aytamirov from their house in Novy Tsentoroy. 19. By a letter of the same date the Envoy forwarded the applicants' complaint about the abduction of Isa Aytamirov to the military prosecutor of the Chechen Republic. 20. On 21 April 2003 the second applicant wrote to the Grozny district prosecutor's office. She complained that her nephew had been abducted by a group of about thirty Russian military servicemen who were speaking Russian and Chechen and had arrived on three APCs. She also stated that the servicemen had refused to give a reason for Isa Aytamirov's abduction, that they had behaved rudely and had beaten her and that she had lost consciousness as a result of the beating. The applicant pointed out that her numerous complaints about the events to various law-enforcement agencies had not produced any results and requested the authorities to institute an investigation into the abduction of Isa Aytamirov. 21. On 30 May 2003 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA military prosecutor's office) forwarded the first applicant's complaint about her son's abduction to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 for examination. 22. On 23 March 2004 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA informed the second applicant that the examination of her complaint concerning her nephew's abduction had not established any involvement of Russian military servicemen in the crime. According to the letter, on an unspecified date the Argun town prosecutor's office had instituted an investigation into Isa Aytamirov's abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) and the case file had been given number 42023. 23. On 12 May 2004 the criminal search division of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior informed the second applicant that on 20 February 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor's office (“the district prosecutor's office”) had instituted an investigation into the abduction of Isa Aytamirov and the criminal case file had been given number 42027. According to the letter, operational search measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Isa Aytamirov and the identities of the perpetrators were under way. 24. On 8 June 2004 the district prosecutor's office wrote to the department of the interior of the Grozny district (the Grozny ROVD) requesting the attendance of the second applicant at the prosecutor's office on 14 July 2004. 25. On 17 June 2004 the applicants' relative, Ms M.DzH., another aunt of the disappeared Isa Aytamirov, was granted the status of a victim in criminal case no. 42027. The decision stated, in particular, that at about 4 a.m. on 19 February 2003 a group of unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms, travelling in three APCs and two UAZ vehicles, had abducted Isa Aytamirov from 36 Gagarina Street, Novy Tsentoroy. 26. On an unspecified date the district prosecutor's office summoned the second applicant for an unspecified investigative measure on 14 July 2004. It is unclear whether any investigative measures were carried out on that date. 27. According to the seizure record of 15 July 2004, on that date investigator T. of the district prosecutor's office seized from the second applicant a medical certificate and two X-rays. 28. On 30 July 2004 the UGA military prosecutor's office forwarded the second applicant's request for assistance in the search for her nephew to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 for examination. 29. On 20 September 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 informed the second applicant that the examination of her complaint had not established any implication of Russian servicemen in the abduction of Isa Aytamirov. The letter also stated that, in addition, the case file materials of criminal case no. 42027 did not contain any information suggesting the involvement of Russian servicemen in the abduction. The second applicant was advised to obtain further information about the criminal investigation from the district prosecutor's office. 30. On 21 February 2005 the military commander of the Chechen republic forwarded the second applicant's complaint about her nephew's abduction to the Grozny district military commander's office. The letter instructed the district military commander's office to examine the complaint together with the Grozny ROVD and the local department of the Federal Security Service and to undertake unspecified measures to establish the whereabouts of Isa Aytamirov. 31. On 17 May 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the district prosecutor's office describing in detail the circumstances of Isa Aytamirov's abduction by Russian servicemen. They pointed out that the investigation into Isa Aytamirov's abduction had been initiated more than two years ago and at the time of writing it had failed to produce any results. They also complained about the lack of information concerning the proceedings. The applicants' representatives requested, among other things, information on the following points: whether any special operations had been conducted between 19 and 21 February 2003 in the Grozny district; whether the area had been under curfew at the material time and whether there had been any Russian military checkpoints in the vicinity of Novy Tsentoroy village and if so, what military vehicles had been at their disposal; whether the authorities had examined the suggestion that Russian servicemen were involved in the abduction of the applicants' relative; and what investigative measures had been undertaken to that end. 32. On 27 May 2005 the UGA military prosecutor's office informed the second applicant that the district prosecutor's office had instituted an investigation into the abduction of her nephew; that the criminal case file had been given number 42027; and that all information was to be obtained from the latter office. 33. On 8 June 2005 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the second applicant's complaint about her nephew's abduction to the district prosecutor's office for examination. The latter was to inform her, as well as the republican prosecutor's office, about the results. 34. On 9 June 2005 the district prosecutor's office replied to the applicants' representatives. The letter stated that the district prosecutor's office had instituted an investigation in criminal case no. 42027; that they had forwarded requests for information to a number of unspecified authorities and had questioned an unspecified number of witnesses; that they had undertaken operational and search measures to identify the perpetrators, but those measures had failed to produce any results. Lastly, the letter stated that the investigation in criminal case no. 42027 had been suspended on 10 August 2004 pursuant to Article 208 § 1 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 35. On 15 June 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants' relative that on 20 February 2003 they had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Isa Aytamirov and the case file had been given the number 42027. According to the letter, unspecified operational and search measures aimed at identifying the perpetrators were under way. 36. On 22 September 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the district prosecutor's office. They stated that the authorities' response to their letter had failed to provide them with the requested information and complained of a lack of information about the investigation. They requested, among other things, that the investigation be conducted in an effective manner and that it be reopened if it had been suspended and asked for permission to have access to the documents in the criminal case file. 37. On 27 December 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on 10 August 2004 they had suspended the investigation in criminal case no. 42027 for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way. 38. On 29 December 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the district prosecutor's office, averring that the authorities' responses to their letters had failed to provide the requested information, and complained of a lack of access to the investigation. They asked for information concerning the status of the investigation and requested that the proceedings be resumed and conducted in an effective and thorough manner. Lastly, they asked for permission to make copies of the documents from the criminal case file. They forwarded a copy of that letter to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic. It is unclear whether the applicants or their representatives received any response to this letter. 39. On 8 July 2008 the Groznenskiy Interdistrict investigating department of the Investigating Department with the Prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic (the investigating department) informed the applicants' relative that on an unspecified date it had resumed the investigation in the criminal case concerning the abduction of Isa Aytemirov. 40. By a letter of 8 August 2008 the investigating department informed the applicants' relative that on an unspecified date the investigation in case no. 42027 had been suspended. 41. On 25 August 2008 the investigating department wrote to the applicants' relative that on the same date they had resumed the investigation of the criminal case concerning the abduction of Isa Aytemirov. 42. By a letter of 25 September 2008 the investigating department notified the second applicant that on the same date the investigation in case no. 42027 had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 43. On 19 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office received Isa Aytamirov's relatives' complaint, saying that at about 4 a.m. on 19 February 2003 a group of armed men, who had arrived on three APCs and two UAZ vehicles, had abducted Isa Aytamirov from his relatives' house at 36 Gagarina Street, Novy Tsentoroy. Furthermore, the kidnappers had inflicted bodily injuries on the second applicant, as a result of which she had been admitted to hospital. 44. On 20 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office opened criminal case no. 42027 into the abduction of Isa Aytamirov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction). 45. M.Dzh., interviewed as a witness on 20 February 2003, stated that at about 4 a.m. on the previous day a group of seven to eight persons in camouflage uniforms had burst into the house where she had been staying together with her mother, two sisters and nephew Isa Aytamirov. The intruders were armed and were speaking Russian and Chechen. They had come to the room where Isa Aytamirov had been sleeping and had taken him, barefoot, outside. There were numerous other persons in camouflage uniforms in the yard. Isa Aytamirov had been put into one of the two APCs parked at the gate and the vehicles had taken off in the direction of Argun. She had not noticed their licence plate numbers. Later on, she had learnt that there had been another APC and two UAZ vehicles on the other side of the street; she did not know anything about their licence plates. When Isa Aytamiro had been put in the APC, the second applicant had rushed to it but had been pushed away; she had fallen down and broken her leg. 46. On 25 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office requested the Grozny ROVD to take operational and search measures aimed at identifying witnesses to the kidnapping and its perpetrators. It also requested from unspecified bodies a description of Isa Aytamirov and information on any involvement on his part in criminal activities. From the replies received, it followed that the operational and search measures had not made it possible to identify the perpetrators. 47. On 25 March 2003 the investigation requested the Chechen Department of the FSB to provide information whether Isa Aytamirov had ever been involved in illegal military groups. From that authority's reply of 1 April 2004 it followed that they did not have information in that respect. 48. On 10 June 2004 the investigation requested the Ministry of the Interior to search for the perpetrators of Isa Aytamirov's kidnapping, establish his whereabouts and submit any incriminating material (компрометирующий материал) on him. From the Ministry's reply it followed that they had no incriminating material on him and that the Ministry's officers had been instructed to take the necessary steps to search for him. 49. On the same date the investigation requested an unspecified authority to identify and interview the relatives and close acquaintances of Isa Aytamirov, as well as obtaining a character reference from unspecified authorities.According to an unspecified source of information, apparently received in reply to the request, Isa Aytamirov had a positive character reference from his place of residence. 50. On 17 June 2004 the investigation granted M. Dzh. victim status in the proceedings in case no. 42027 and interviewed her. M. Dzh. stated that her mother, Isa Aytamirov and the second applicant had been living with her in the village of Novy Tsentoroy. At about 4 a.m. on 19 February 2003 a group of armed men had broken down the entrance door and had burst into her house. They had headed to the room where Isa Aytamirov had been sleeping, had taken him outside and driven him away. When he had been brought outside, there had been an APC there. The intruders had been speaking mostly Russian; only one of them had been speaking Chechen. Isa Aytamirov had been unemployed but had wanted to apply for a job in the Ministry of the Interior. He had mostly stayed at home. 51. On the same date the investigation interviewed M.A. Dzh., Isa Aytamirov's great-uncle. He stated that he was M. Dzh.'s neighbour. In the morning on 19 February 2003 he had learnt that on the previous night a group of armed men had burst into her house and had kidnapped Isa Aytamirov. M.A.Dzh did not know the reason for his kidnapping. Isa Aytamirov had gone frequently to Grozny and had always been checked at the checkpoints on the way there, however, he had never had any problems. 52. On unspecified dates the investigation requested all the district prosecutor's offices in the Chechen Republic to indicate to the local departments of the interior that they should search for Isa Aytamirov, find out whether he had been arrested during any special operation conducted by the military or law-enforcement authorities, whether he was being held in any detention centre and whether his body could be found among bodies which had not been identified. 53. All replies to those questions from the above-mentioned authorities were in the negative. 54. On 15 July 2004 the second applicant was interviewed as a witness. She stated that she lived with her mother and M. Dzh. and that Isa Aytamirov had been staying with them until his abduction on 19 February 2003. On that day at about 4 a.m. a group of armed men burst into their house, where her other sister was staying, as well as the people mentioned. The intruders had gone straight away to the room where Isa Aytamirov was, as if they had known where he was sleeping. They had woken him and taken him outside. After that one of the armed men had told her to fetch Isa Aytamirov's passport, which she had done. In the street she had seen three APCs and several UAZ vehicles. Isa Aytamirov had been put into one of the APCs. A minute or two later the intruders left. The second applicant had tried to climb on to an APC and had even managed to get on to it for a moment but one of the armed men had struck her on the right shoulder with a rifle butt and pushed her to the ground and she had lost consciousness. When she woke she was at home. She had pain in the right arm and her left leg was swollen and covered with blood. On the same morning she was admitted to Argun town hospital where they applied a splint to her injured leg. On the same day she had been taken to the military hospital. She wore the splint for two weeks. The second applicant had kept a medical certificate from the hospital and two X-rays. 55. On 15 July 2004 the investigation seized the medical certificate and the X-rays from the second applicant. 56. On 19 July 2004 the investigation ordered an expert medical examination of the second application. It appears that it was not carried out. 57. On 9 July 2008 investigator K. ordered, yet again, the second applicant's to be examined with a view to establishing the origin of her injury, the date of its infliction and the level of damage to her health. He enclosed the two X-rays seized from the second applicant on 15 July 2004. it appears that he did not enclose the medical certificate seized from the second applicant. 58. On 28 July 2008 the Forensic Medical Assessment Office of the Chechen Republic (“the forensic assessment office”) refused to comply with the request because the investigative department had failed to furnish the second applicant's medical record and that of her subsequent health problems, which had made it impossible to carry out the required examination. 59. According to the Government, the investigation in case no. 42027 is pending. 60. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case no. 42027, providing only copies of the decision of 20 February 2003 to institute an investigation; the applicants' relatives' complaint of 19 February 2003 about the abduction of Isa Aytamirov; the record of interview of M. Dzh. of 20 February 2003; the decision to grant M. Dzh. victim status of 17 June 2004 and her interview record of the same date; the interview record of M.A. Dzh. of 17 June 2004; the interview record of the second applicant of 15 July 2004; the decision of 9 July 2008 ordering the second applicant's medical examination, and the reply from the forensic office of 28 July 2008. 61. They submitted that the copies provided were the only documents which could be submitted to the Court “without damage to legally protected interests”, without providing any further details. Subsequently, they clarified that they could not furnish the documents because it might prejudice the interests of the State and also of the participants to the criminal proceedings. They referred to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The applicant, who was born in 1940, lives in Grozny. He is the father of Mr Tamerlan (also known as Timur) Suleymanov, who was born in 1982. 7. According to the applicant, on at least seven occasions between 2005 and 2011 his son Tamerlan Suleymanov was unlawfully detained by State agents on suspicion of membership of illegal armed groups. 8. On 7 May 2011 Tamerlan Suleymanov was detained for a few hours by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD”), who subjected him to ill-treatment and pressured him to confess to the preparation of a terrorist act in May 2011. Upon his release the applicant’s son neither lodged complaints about this detention nor applied for medical help. (b) Abduction of Tamerlan Suleymanov 9. At the material time Tamerlan Suleymanov worked as a car mechanic at the Mustang car repair garage in Kirova Street, Grozny. A police station (in the documents submitted it is also referred to as a police checkpoint) was located next to the garage. 10. At about 11.30 a.m. on 9 May 2011 a group of eight armed men in black uniforms arrived at the garage in two civilian VAZ-217030 cars (both of them the Lada Priora model), with the registration numbers 991 AA/05 and E423EE95. The men did not identify themselves. They asked the employees who Tamerlan was. As soon as the applicant’s son identified himself, they punched him and beat him with rifle butts until he was unconscious. After that the men, who spoke Chechen, put him into one of the vehicles and drove away. 11. The incident took place in the presence of witnesses, twenty metres from the police station. According to the applicant, police officers witnessed the incident but did not intervene. (c) Subsequent events 12. The applicant was immediately informed about the incident. He went straight away to the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Oktyabrskiy ROVD”) in Grozny and made a complaint about it. An officer named Anzor or Aslan spoke with him and promised to look into the matter. 13. In the morning of 10 May 2011 the applicant went to the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and complained that his son had been taken away. The duty investigator asked him what had happened, then called the Oktyabrskiy ROVD and asked Police Officer Anzor to come over. The latter arrived soon afterwards and told the applicant that he should not have complained to the prosecutor’s office and should have known that his son was connected with members of illegal armed groups. 14. Some time in May 2011 the applicant learnt from unspecified sources that his son Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained at the premises of the Kurchaloy District Department of the Interior (“the Kurchaloy ROVD”) in Yalkhoy-Mokhk, a village a few kilometres from Kurchaloy, Chechnya. 15. On an unspecified date in July 2011 the applicant’s wife, Ms L. Dzh., and the wife of Tamerlan Suleymanov, Ms E.A., went to Yalkhoy-Mokhk and spoke with local residents. They were told that there was a building belonging to the Kurchaloy ROVD on the southern outskirts of the village. When the applicant’s relatives went there, they saw that the building did not have any signs indicating that it belonged to the ROVD; it was surrounded by a brick fence with a barrier gate. A man in police uniform came out and identified himself as the duty officer of the village police department. The women asked him about Tamerlan. The officer told them that he had no information about their relative and that they did not have detention cells on the premises. 16. According to the applicant, in July 2011 he received confirmation from a trusted source – whose identity he could not disclose out of fear for that person’s safety – that his son had been detained in the building in Yalkhoy‑Mokhk, subjected to ill-treatment and pressured to confess to membership of illegal armed groups and preparation of a terrorist act. 17. The applicant informed the investigator in charge of the investigation that Tamerlan had been detained in Yalkhoy-Mokhk. On 20 July 2011 the investigator confirmed to the applicant that he was aware of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s detention at this place, but told him that it would be impossible to release him [Tamerlan Suleymanov] through a legal process. 18. On 20 July 2011 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 23 June 2011) the investigator provided the applicant with a police officer for personal protection. 19. According to the applicant, one of the abductor’s vehicles with the registration number E423EE95 belonged to the Department for Presidential and Governmental Affairs of the Chechen Republic. 20. The Government did not dispute the matter as presented by the applicant. They submitted that the domestic authorities had obtained information concerning Tamerlan Suleymanov’s membership of an illegal armed group. They stated that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant’s son had been unlawfully detained or ill-treated by State agents and submitted that unidentified persons had been responsible for the incident of 9 May 2011. 21. On 10 May 2011 the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Investigations Department in Grozny (“the investigations department”) that his son had been unlawfully arrested and detained. The applicant stated that the men who had arrested his son had arrived in two VAZ cars, with the registration numbers 991 AA/05 (a sand-coloured vehicle) and E423EE95 (a grey or silver-coloured vehicle). 22. On 10 May 2011 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 23. On 10 and 11 May 2011 the investigators forwarded requests to a number of district departments of the interior and district hospitals in Chechnya for information on the whereabouts of the applicant’s son, his possible arrest and detention by law-enforcement agencies, whether his body had been found or if he had received medical treatment in their area. On the latter date they also asked the Chechnya FSB to inform them whether Tamerlan Suleymanov was suspected of membership of illegal armed groups and the State Road Traffic Police to provide information concerning the owners of the registration numbers of the cars used by the abductors. 24. On 11 May 2011 the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor that on 7 May 2011 his son had been detained by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, who had subjected him to ill‑treatment and had pressured him to confess to the preparation of a terrorist act. 25. On 11 May 2011 the applicant complained of his son’s abduction to the Chechnya Federal Security Service (“the FSB”). 26. On 16 May 2011 the applicant’s representatives complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor that Tamerlan Suleymanov had been unlawfully detained by law-enforcement officers. They described the circumstances of the incident, stressing that the abductors had punched Tamerlan until he was unconscious, had put him into one of their cars, and had then driven away, and asked to be informed whether the applicant’s son had been detained on suspicion of a crime. 27. On 18 May 2011 the State Road Police informed the investigators that registration number E423EE95 was listed as a lost/invalid one and that registration number 991 AA/05 did not belong to a Lada Priora car. The agency invited the investigators to obtain further information from the law‑enforcement authorities in Dagestan. 28. On 18 May 2011 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 15 May 2011) the Zavodskoy District Investigations Department in Grozny initiated a criminal investigation of the events under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) and the case file was given the number 49012. The applicant was informed thereof. 29. On 19 May 2011 the investigators forwarded a number of requests for assistance in the search for Tamerlan Suleymanov to a number of district departments of the interior in Chechnya. 30. On 24 May 2011 the Chechnya FSB informed the investigators that they had no information about either Tamerlan Suleymanov’s whereabouts or any involvement on his part in the activities of illegal armed groups. 31. On 3 June 2011 the investigators forwarded requests for information as to whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had a criminal record to various regional information centres of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation (“the MVD”). Replies were received in the negative. On the same date they asked the relevant hospitals in Chechnya to provide information as to whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had received any psychiatric or drug-addiction treatment. 32. On 8 June 2011 the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation of his son’s abduction was in progress. 33. On 14 June 2011 the investigation of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s abduction was transferred from the Zavodskoy District Investigations Department to the Third Serious Crime Investigation Unit of the Chechnya Investigations Committee. 34. On 15 June 2011 the deputy head of the Chechnya Investigations Committee issued supervisory instructions to the investigators of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s abduction, stating amongst other things that the investigators were to identify the owners of the cars used by the abductors and take steps to find out whether any special operations had been conducted by law‑enforcement authorities targeting Tamerlan Suleymanov on 9 May 2011. On the following day he issued supervisory instructions, stating amongst other things that the investigators were to find out whether the alleged detention of the applicant’s son on 7 May 2011 had been recorded in the registration log of detainees kept by the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD in Grozny, that they were to identify and question Officer Anzor from the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny, and to find out whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained by the Kurchaloy ROVD. The investigators were to report on their findings by 4 July 2011. 35. On 20 June 2011 the investigators prepared the plan of investigative measures to be taken in criminal case no. 49012. The document stated, amongst other things, that the investigation was to establish whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been abducted by law-enforcement agents from Chechnya or the neighbouring regions; whether he had been abducted by members of illegal armed groups; or whether the abduction had been staged by relatives of Tamerlan Suleymanov to cover up his criminal activities or hide him from other persons. 36. On 21 June 2011 the investigators requested that their colleagues from the Public Relations Office of the Chechnya Investigations Committee publish an announcement of the search for Tamerlan Suleymanov in the local media. 37. On that date the investigators also conducted a reconstruction of the crime scene (the Mustang car repair garage) and made follow-up phone calls. Furthermore, as a result of the reconstruction, the investigators sought permission from the Staropromyslovskiy District Court to identify the owners of the mobile telephone numbers used between 11 a.m. and noon on 9 May 2011 at the Mustang car repair garage. The investigators stated that this information would assist in establishing who the perpetrators had called during the abduction. 38. Again on 21 June 2011 the investigators requested that the temporary detention centre (“IVS”) located on the premises of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD provide them with certified copies of their registration logs reflecting the custodial records for all those detained on their premises between 7 and 11 May 2011. According to the copies of the contents of the investigation file furnished to the Court, on an unspecified date the investigators obtained a copy of the registration log reflecting the records made between 2 and 15 May 2011, in which Tamerlan Suleymanov was not listed as a detainee in the IVS. 39. On 22 June 2011 the investigators asked the head of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to identify Officer Anzor, who had spoken with the applicant on 9 May 2011 when the latter had arrived at the police station. On 30 June 2011 the steps requested were taken and Officer Anzor was identified and questioned (see below). 40. On 23 June 2011 the applicant requested that the investigators put security measures in place for him, stating that he was concerned for his personal safety. On the same date his request was granted and the applicant was provided with personal protection until the end of the investigation of the criminal case. 41. On various dates in June 2011 the investigators forwarded requests to a number of detention centres in Chechnya and other regions of the Russian Federation, asking whether the applicant’s son had been detained on their premises. Replies were received in the negative. 42. On various dates in June and July 2011 the investigators forwarded requests to various transportation authorities for information on the identity of the current owners of the vehicle registration numbers used by the abductors. As a result of the information received, it was established that the owners of the registration numbers were not implicated in the abduction of the applicant’s son. 43. On 13 July 2011 the applicant complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor about the events of 9 May 2011 and claimed that his son had been detained by the abductors on the premises of the Kurchaloy ROVD in the settlement of Yalkhoy-Mokhk, and that prior to his abduction, on 7 May 2011, his son had been detained by Officer Magomed M., who the applicant maintained had been responsible for the abduction on 9 May 2011. 44. On 22 July 2011 the Investigations Department of the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s complaint of 13 July 2011, stating that the investigation of his son’s abduction was under way and that a number of steps had been taken to have the matter resolved. 45. On 22 July 2011 the investigators requested that the Kurchaloy ROVD inform them whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained there and provide them with a list of the officers serving in their branch in Yalkhoy‑Mokhk. 46. On 27 July 2011 the investigators asked the Kurchaloy ROVD to provide them with certified copies of the registration logs and custody records of persons detained in their IVS between 9 May and 27 July 2011. 47. On 28 July 2011 the Oktyabrskiy ROVD replied to the investigators that they were taking operational-search measures to establish whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained in Yalkhoy‑Mokhk, and that the investigators would be kept abreast of the developments. 48. On 30 July 2011 the Kurchaloy ROVD informed the investigators that they could not state whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained on their premises between 9 May and 30 July 2011, as owing to renovation work at the IVS all detainees were being held in the IVS of the Shali ROVD at the time. 49. On 1 August 2011 the investigators again examined the crime scene at the Mustang car repair garage. No evidence was collected. 50. On 2 August 2011 the investigators asked the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to establish whether the CCTV cameras at the Mustang car repair garage and the shops across the road had recorded the events of the day of the abduction. They also asked the head of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to assist them in finding the police officers who had been in the security cordon on 9 May 2011 in the area where the abduction had taken place. In their request they submitted, inter alia, as follows: “...from the contents of the investigation file it is evident that on 9 May 2011, in connection with the public Victory Day celebration, the entire perimeter of Kirova Street in Grozny was secured by servicemen of law-enforcement agencies, who could have witnessed the abduction. It is necessary to identify and question the servicemen who were on duty in Kirova Street, taking information from the order [establishing the security cordon] and the internal duty roster ...” 51. On 3 August 2011 the investigators asked the head of the Kurchaloy ROVD to oblige two officers of the Yalkhoy-Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD, Officers As. Do. and Sha. El., to make statements to the investigation. They also asked the Chechnya MVD to conduct an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations that on 7 May 2011 his son had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention for some hours at the premises of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD. 52. On 6 August 2011 the investigators examined the premises of the Yalkhoy-Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD. No evidence was collected. 53. On 12 September 2011 the Chechnya Minister of the Interior replied to the investigators, stating that the inquiry had established that on 7 May 2011 three police officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, Mr Magomed M., Mr Mu. As., and Mr Is. Ga., had gone to the Mustang car repair garage, as they had been informed earlier that day that Tamerlan Suleymanov was assisting members of illegal armed groups. The officers had taken Tamerlan Suleymanov into their car, spoken with him and had then released him without subjecting him to physical or psychological ill‑treatment. Therefore, the applicant’s allegations that his son had been beaten by police on 7 May 2011 were not confirmed. 54. On 12 October 2011 the investigators asked the mobile telephone company MegaPhone to provide them with a list of the owners of seven numbers from which Tamerlan Suleymanov had received phone calls. According to the company’s reply, six of the seven numbers were registered as belonging to district departments of the interior located in the Otradniy district of the Krasnodar Region and in the Grozny, Naurskiy, Achkhoy‑Martan and Shali districts of Chechnya. On the same date the investigators asked the Vimpelcom mobile telephone company to provide them with a list of the owners of four numbers from which Tamerlan Suleymanov had received phone calls. 55. On 13 October 2011 the investigators again asked their colleagues from the Kizlyar Investigations Department in Dagestan to question Mr R. Yus., the owner of car registration number AA 991 H 05 RUS, as this registration number had been used by the abductors. As a result of the ensuing questioning, no pertinent information was given by the witness. 56. On 12 May 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated, amongst other things, that on 9 May 2011 his son Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained at work by law-enforcement officers, who had arrived there in VAZ-217030 cars with the registration numbers 991 AA/05 and E423EE95. He further stated that prior to those events, on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan had been detained for several hours by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, who had questioned him about a terrorist act. The applicant also informed the investigators that his son did not have financial problems, was not a member of any illegal armed groups, and was not involved in a blood feud. 57. On 14 and 15 May 2011 the investigators questioned colleagues of Tamerlan Suleymanov, Mr M.Kh. and Mr Kh.Ya., both of whom stated that late in the morning of 9 May 2011 they and several other colleagues had been working at the car repair garage when a group of about ten armed men in black military uniforms had arrived there in two Lada Priora cars. Three of the men had spoken with Tamerlan in Chechen, and had then shoved him into one of their vehicles and driven away. 58. On 20 May 2011 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to the applicant, he had learnt from his friend Magomed that on 9 May 2011 his son Tamerlan Suleymanov had been taken away from work by law-enforcement officers in VAZ‑217030 cars with the registration numbers 991 AA/05 and E423EE95. He further stated that he had complained about the abduction to a number of law‑enforcement agencies, but to no avail. The applicant also informed the investigators that prior to the abduction on 9 May 2011 his son had been unlawfully detained on 7 May 2011 by police officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD on suspicion of participation in terrorist activities. 59. On 20 and 23 May 2011 the investigators again questioned Mr M. Kh. and Mr Kh. Ya., whose statements about the circumstances of the abduction were similar to those given previously. 60. On 1 June 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant’s other son, Mr Ya. S., who stated, amongst other things, that his brother Tamerlan had been taken away from work on 9 May 2011 by law-enforcement officers in two Lada Priora cars. The witness also stated that his brother Tamerlan had been detained on 7 May 2011 by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD on suspicion of participation in terrorist activities. 61. On 4 June 2011 the investigators questioned Tamerlan Suleymanov’s wife, Ms E. A., who stated that her husband had been abducted by law-enforcement agents and whose statement was similar to the one given by Mr Ya. S. on 1 June 2011. 62. On 18 June 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant’s other son, Mr A. S., who stated, amongst other things, that the applicant had told him that Tamerlan had been abducted from work on 9 May 2011. He further stated that at about 11 a.m. on 7 May 2011 he had been in the café at the Mustang car repair garage with his brother Tamerlan when Officer Magomed M. had arrived there and had asked Tamerlan to leave with him. Tamerlan had been put into a silver-coloured Lada Priora car and the car had driven away. The witness had immediately informed their brother, Ya. S., about what had happened and the latter had contacted a Mr Akhyad, who had apparently assisted in getting Tamerlan released at about 4 p.m. on the same day. According to the witness, Tamerlan had told him that he had been detained at an unidentified place and that slight physical force had been used against him by the men who had taken him away. After his detention on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan had not sought medical assistance. 63. On 18 June 2011 the investigators again questioned Mr M. Kh. and Mr Kh. Ya. from the Mustang garage, both of whom again described the circumstances of the abduction and stated that some of the abductors had been armed with Stechkin pistols, that they had been masked and of different heights, and that they would not be able to identify them. According to Mr Kh. Ya., after his detention on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan had told him that no physical force had been used against him during detention. According Mr Kh. Ya., on 9 May 2011 the abductors had beaten Tamerlan Suleymanov with rifle butts and had punched and kicked him. He also stated that the repair garage had been equipped with video surveillance cameras but he did not know whether these cameras had been working on 9 May 2011. 64. On 18 June 2011 the investigators also questioned Mr M. L., another employee of the Mustang car repair garage, whose statement was similar to those given by Mr M. Kh. and Mr Kh. Ya. He also stated that on 9 May 2011 the abductors had knocked Tamerlan unconscious with rifle butts, had put him into one of their cars and had then taken him away. The witness did not know whether Tamerlan had previously been subjected to ill-treatment on 7 May 2011. 65. On 20 June 2011 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who confirmed the statements he had made previously and stated that he had learnt from the eyewitnesses to the abduction that the abductors had knocked his son Tamerlan unconscious and had taken him away: they had travelled in two cars, with the registration numbers 991 AA 05 and E423EE95. On 9 May 2011, shortly after the abduction, he had gone to the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, where an officer who had identified himself as Aslan (also referred to as Anzor) had written down the information about the abduction but had refused to accept an official complaint, saying that he would look into the matter and would call the applicant. On the following day, 10 May 2011, the applicant had gone to the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and had complained about the abduction. The duty prosecutor, Mr A., had called police officer Aslan; the latter had arrived and had spoken with the prosecutor. The applicant further stated that on 7 May 2011 his son Tamerlan had been detained and subjected to ill-treatment by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD on the orders of Officer Magomed M., and that after his release Tamerlan had not sought medical help. 66. On 23 June 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Ma. Ma., the head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD’s operational-search unit, who stated that on 7 May 2011 officers of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD had conducted a special operation, as a result of which they had been informed that Tamerlan Suleymanov had been aiding an illegal armed group. On the same date, 7 May 2011, Officer Magomed M., the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, had spoken with Tamerlan in a car not far from the latter’s place of work. As a result of this conversation Tamerlan Suleymanov had been taken back to work; he had not been subjected to ill‑treatment. The witness further stated that he had learnt about Tamerlan’s abduction on 9 May 2011 from his colleague, Officer Su. Du., the head of the criminal search division of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, who had informed him about the incident and had asked whether their ROVD had any information about it. 67. On 23 June 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Se. M., a lawyer from the Chechnya Public Chamber, who stated that on 30 May 2011 the applicant had complained that his son had been abducted and that in his complaint the applicant had referred to Officer Magomed M., the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD. On the same date the witness had called the officer, who had explained that he had indeed detained Tamerlan Suleymanov on 7 May 2011 for a few hours, but that he had released him on the orders of a supervisor and that he had already tried to explain to the applicant the reasons for his son’s detention on 7 May 2011. 68. On 24 June 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Magomed M., the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, who stated that on 7 May 2011 he had participated in a special operation, as a result of which information had been obtained to the effect that Tamerlan Suleymanov had been aiding an illegal armed group. He and his colleagues, Officers Mu. As. and Is. Ga., had gone to see Tamerlan in the afternoon of 7 May 2011 at the car repair garage; they had asked him to follow them and had spoken with him in their car. After the conversation Tamerlan had gone back to work; he had neither been taken to the police station nor subjected to ill-treatment. As regards the events of 9 May 2011, the officer stated that he did not have any detailed information about the incident, and submitted that he had not threatened the applicant in connection with his application to the European Court of Human Rights and that the applicant had indeed told him that he suspected him of abducting his son. The witness also stated that he had no idea from what source the applicant could have learnt about his son’s alleged detention in the police station (the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD’s premises) and explained that he personally owned a silver-coloured Lada Priora car with the registration number A971 MK 95 RUS but that he did not own any other registration numbers which could have been used for an operational cover-up. 69. On 27 June 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Mu. As. from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, whose statement about the events of 7 May 2011 was similar to the one given by Officer Magomed M. on 24 June 2011. 70. On 29 June 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Sh. A., who stated that in May 2011 he had been deputy district prosecutor at the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and that at the beginning of May 2011 the applicant had complained to the prosecutor’s office that his son had been abducted. The witness could not remember his conversation with the applicant, owing to the significant number of complaints he had had to deal with at the relevant time. 71. On 30 June 2011 the investigators questioned police officer A. D., also known as Anzor and Aslan, who stated that on 9 May 2011 he had been on duty at the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, but that he could not remember either the applicant’s complaint about the abduction on 9 May 2011 or the purpose of his own visit to the district prosecutor’s office on 10 May 2011. The witness stated that on 10 May 2011 he had not seen the applicant at the prosecutor’s office, that he had no information about any abduction, and that the applicant must have obtained his personal mobile phone number from one of his colleagues. 72. On 1 and 4 July 2011 the investigators questioned three of the applicant’s neighbours, including Mr A. O., Mr I. M. and Mr A. Kh., all of whom stated that they did not know anything about any abduction. 73. On 5 July 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Is. Ga. from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, whose statement about the events of 7 May 2011 was similar to the one given by Officer Magomed M. on 24 June 2011. 74. On 6 July 2011 the investigators questioned Ms T. Us., who stated that she worked in the café across the road from the Mustang car repair garage, but that she had not witnessed Tamerlan Suleymanov’s abduction and did not know anything about it. 75. On 11 July 2011 the investigators again questioned Ms E. A., the wife of Tamerlan Suleymanov, who reiterated her previous statement and added that on 7 May 2011 her husband had been detained at the premises of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, where he had been subjected to ill‑treatment and questioned about his alleged involvement in the preparation of a terrorist act planned for 9 May 2011. As a result, Tamerlan had acquired bruises and haematomas, but had not sought medical assistance. 76. On 14 July 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Is. Is., who stated that on 6 May 2011 he had been arrested by the police on suspicion of membership of illegal armed groups and taken to the premises of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, where he had been detained for ten days. The witness stated that he neither had information about Tamerlan Suleymanov’s detention or abduction by the police, nor about the latter’s involvement in illegal armed groups. 77. On 17 July 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Ar. A., the owner of a shop located near the place of the abduction, who stated that his shop’s CCTV camera did not have a recording function and therefore no video footage of the abduction was available. 78. On 18 July 2011 the investigators again questioned Tamerlan Suleymanov’s colleague Mr M. Kh., who reiterated his previously given statements and added that on 9 May 2011 the abductors had used physical force against Tamerlan and that, according to his colleagues, on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan had been taken away by someone from the police station for about three hours and released. The witness did not know whether Tamerlan had been subjected to ill-treatment on 7 May 2011. 79. On 29 July 2011 the investigators questioned the head of the Kurchaloy ROVD’s IVS, Officer Ab. Um., who stated that he was not aware of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s abduction and that the latter had not been detained in the Kurchaloy ROVD’s IVS. The witness further stated that in February 2011 the temporary detention centre had not been operational owing to repair works, and that all detainees had been held in the IVS of the Shatoy ROVD at the time. Only one cell in the Kurchaloy ROVD’s IVS had been operational: it had been checked by a supervisory prosecutor on a daily basis. The officer also stated that there were no detention facilities at the Yalkhoy‑Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD, and that he did not know the police officers who served in that branch as he rarely visited their premises. He also stated that his staff did not use cars similar to those described as having been used by the abductors. 80. On the same date, 29 July 2011, the investigators questioned the head of the public safety department of the Kurchaloy ROVD, Officer S. Bi., who stated that he had never been to the Yalkhoy‑Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD and therefore did not know whether it had detention facilities on its premises, and that he did not know the whereabouts of the applicant’s son. He also stated that his staff did not use cars similar to those described as having been used by the abductors. 81. Again on 29 July 2011 the investigators questioned the head of the Kurchaloy ROVD, Officer A. Be., who stated that Tamerlan Suleymanov had neither been brought to nor detained at their ROVD premises and that he had no information about any abduction. 82. On 1 August 2011 the investigators questioned the manager of the Mustang car repair garage, Mr L.-A. Yu., who stated that he had been told by his colleagues that Tamerlan Suleymanov had been taken away. 83. On 6 August 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Sha. El., an officer from the Yalkhoy-Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD, who stated that Tamerlan Suleymanov had not been brought to or detained in their police station in Yalkhoy-Mokhk; that there was no registration log of detainees in their station; and that their station did not have cars similar to the ones described as having been used by the abductors. The officer could not identify the applicant’s son from three pictures of young men shown to him. 84. On the same date the investigators questioned Mr As. Do., another officer from the Yalkhoy-Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD, who stated that: there was an administrative detention cell for short-term detention on the premises of the police station in Yalkhoy-Mokhk, but that this cell was not operational; he had not been aware of the applicant’s son’s abduction; and he had no information concerning the latter’s whereabouts. 85. Again on 6 August 2011 the investigators questioned Mr T. Kh., an officer of the Kurchaloy ROVD, who stated that he had not participated in any special operations against the applicant’s son and that to his knowledge the administrative detention cell in the Yalkhoy-Mokhk police station was not operational. The officer could not identify the applicant’s son from three pictures of young men shown to him. 86. On 17 August 2011 the investigators questioned Mr T. P., the owner of a shop located next to the Mustang car repair garage, who stated that his shop’s CCTV system would keep recordings for one month and that after that they were erased; therefore no video footage of the abduction was available. 87. On 18 August 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Ar. S., the head of the operational-search department of the Chechnya MVD, who stated that he had been acquainted with Tamerlan Suleymanov but was unaware of the circumstances of his abduction. They also questioned Officer Akh. Kh. from the operational-search department of the Chechnya MVD, who stated that on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained for a few hours but then released, and that he had no idea who could have abducted the applicant’s son on 9 May 2011. 88. On 29 August 2011 the investigators questioned Mr R. Kh., who stated that he had called Tamerlan Suleymanov at the beginning of May 2011 to discuss a car service matter and that he did not know anything about his abduction. 89. In August and September 2011 the investigators questioned eleven police officers, including R. D., M. Ba., Akh. E., T. Sh., A. I., M. I., Ad. Iz., D. M., M. Ya., A. K. and I. Ma., all of whom stated that they had been part of the enhanced security measures for the Victory Day celebration in Grozny on 9 May 2011, but had not been on duty in Kirova Street as indicated on the duty roster, but rather had been in another area, and that they had not witnessed any abduction. 90. On 1 September 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Z. Kh., an employee of the Mustang car repair garage, who stated that on 7 May 2011 his colleague Tamerlan Suleymanov had been taken away from work by servicemen; that after his return to the service station several hours later Tamerlan had looked stressed and had told him that he had been subjected to physical violence by the servicemen; and that on the following day he had not turned up at work. The witness further stated that he had not been at work on the day of the abduction. 91. On 2 September 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter, Ms M. S., who stated that her brother Tamerlan had been detained by someone on 7 May 2011, that after his detention he had told her that he had not been subjected to ill-treatment and that he had not sought medical help. 92. On 5 September 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter-in-law, Ms L. D., who stated that on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained by unidentified persons who, according to him, had not used physical force against him. At the same time, she stated that she had learnt from Tamerlan’s wife that after his detention he had had bruises and haematomas on his body; however, he had not sought medical help. 93. On 12 October 2011 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who confirmed his previous statements and, referring to the statement he had made on 20 June 2011, added that on 10 May 2011, when he had visited the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office to complain about his son’s abduction, he had spoken about it with Officer Anzor and the deputy district prosecutor, Mr As. The conversation had taken place in the office in the presence of an employee, a slender woman in her forties of average height who had heard the entire conversation and who could therefore confirm his statements. 94. On 12 October 2011 the investigators conducted a confrontation between the applicant and Police Officer A. D., known as Anzor and Aslan. The applicant stated that on 9 May 2011 he had arrived at the premises of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny and had complained in person to the duty officer, Officer Anzor, about his son’s abduction; that on the following day, 10 May 2011, he had gone in person to the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and had complained about the abduction to the duty prosecutor, Mr A. Sh., in the presence of Officer Anzor. Officer Anzor denied that he had spoken with the applicant on 9 May 2011 and stated that he had not met him on 10 May 2011 at the prosecutor’s office. 95. On 19 October 2011 the investigators questioned Ms Sh. B., an employee of the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office, who confirmed that she had seen the applicant in their office on 10 May 2011 when he had complained about his son’s abduction to the deputy district prosecutor, Mr Sh. A., but she was unaware of the contents of their conversation. The witness could not remember whether she had seen Officer Anzor talking to the applicant at the prosecutor’s office on that date. 96. According to the Government’s submission of 14 December 2011, the investigation of the abduction was still in progress. 97. In reply to the Court’s request for a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no. 49012 the Government furnished a copy of the entire file, consisting of 758 pages. 98. On 25 May and again on 26 July 2011 the applicant requested the Court to indicate to the Russian Government interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, stating that he had obtained unofficial information about his son’s unlawful detention and ill-treatment at a police station in Yalkhoy-Mokhk in Chechnya. 99. On 26 July the Court requested the Government to provide comments in response to the applicant’s request by 28 July 2011. 100. Based on the information received from the parties, on 29 July 2011 the President of the Chamber decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, an interim measure desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court. This measure was intended to provide the investigators examining the claims of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s unlawful detention and ill-treatment with full access to the premises of the Kurchaloy ROVD in the village of Yalkhoy‑Mokhk in the Kurchaloy district of Chechnya and to take all necessary steps to establish whether Tamerlan Suleymanov was detained there. The Government were also requested to submit by 2 August 2011 full documentation showing how they had complied with this request. 101. On 1 August 2011 the Government informed the Court that they were awaiting the submission of the relevant information and documents from the domestic investigative authorities. 102. On 9 August 2011 the Government informed the Court that the investigators had taken a number of steps to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court. In particular, between 29 July and 9 August 2011 the investigators had questioned five officers of the Kurchaloy ROVD, who had stated that the applicant’s son had not been brought to the premises of the Kurchaloy ROVD as the temporary detention centre had not been operational, and that on 6 August 2011 the investigators had examined the Kurchaloy ROVD’s premises in the village of Yalkhoy-Mokhk where Tamerlan Suleymanov had allegedly been detained. It had been established that the applicant’s son was not detained there.

5. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Bucharest. 6. On 9 June 1993, the applicant was placed in police custody for five days under the accusation of having murdered his partner. On 14 June 1993, the prosecutor attached to the Giurgiu County Court ordered the applicant's remand in custody. 7. On 22 October 1993, the prosecutor attached to the Giurgiu County Court committed the applicant for trial for aggravated murder, under Article 176 (a) of the Criminal Code. 8. On 4 April, 10 October, 28 November 1994, 9 January, 13 February and 15 May 1995, in the presence of the applicant and D.U., his chosen defence counsel, the County Court heard evidence from witnesses. On 10 October 1994 the applicant also gave evidence. On 15 May 1995 the County Court heard evidence from the prosecutor, the civil party and D.U. It then allowed the applicant to address the court last. 9. In a judgment of 29 May 1995 the County Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment. It based its judgment on the witness testimonies, the applicant's declarations and behaviour and the medical reports concerning the death of the victim. On 16 February 1996 the sentence was confirmed, upon the applicant's appeal, by the Bucharest Court of Appeal which heard evidence from the applicant and I.C., his defence counsel. 10. The applicant appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court of Justice alleging that he had not committed the murder and that, therefore, the evidence had been wrongly interpreted by the courts. 11. The applicant was sent to the Prison Hospital from 4 August to 5 October 1995, from 4 April to 25 April 1996 and again from 8 to 22 August 1996. He underwent several surgical interventions there. In 1996 he was diagnosed with a perianal tumour but refused further surgery. Due to a severe problem with his eyes, the doctors who examined the applicant recommended his release. 12. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the applicant's health was in constant decline. Therefore, he was absent from most of the hearings held in the case, but allegedly requested repeatedly that the proceedings be suspended because of his illness. 13. It appears from the non-definitive decisions that the applicant was represented either by a court-appointed counsel or by a lawyer of his choice for most of the hearings. 14. On 17 February 1997, after having examined the applicant and having noted, in particular, that he had lost 20 kg in six months, the prison doctors recommended that the applicant undergo an expert examination by the Forensic Institute. On 10 March 1997, the same doctors recommended the applicant's release. 15. He was hospitalised again between 8 January and 30 May 1997. In March 2007, he was transferred under escort to the Bagdasar public Hospital in Bucharest where he underwent a colostomy. He claims that he was handcuffed to the bed. 16. On 23 April 1997, the doctors recommended his release from custody due to his severe medical condition. 17. On 15 May 1997, the Forensic Institute concluded that the applicant had to follow a three-month course of treatment, which would prevent him from participating in the proceedings. 18. On 27 May 1997 the Supreme Court suspended the trial due to the applicant's health condition, as revealed by the Forensic Institute's report adduced in the case. It also ordered the applicant's release, which took place on 30 May 1997. 19. The Supreme Court requested periodically the experts' opinion on the applicant's condition in order to assess if the reasons for the suspension of the proceedings were still valid. 20. After his release, the applicant continued to be treated for his illness. On 15 January 1998 the Forensic Institute certified that another six‑month course of treatment was necessary and that during that time the applicant could not participate in the proceedings. 21. On 10 March 1999 the court held a hearing and noted that the medical report had not yet been submitted. It set its next hearing for 2 June 1999. 22. On 12 March 1999 the Forensic Institute informed the Supreme Court that the applicant was fit to participate in the trial. 23. On 2 June the court took note of the medical report but noted some informalities and sent it back to the Forensic Institute. It set its next hearing for 13 October. 24. On 13 October 1999, in the presence of the applicant's chosen counsel, the Supreme Court noted that neither the prosecutor nor the lower courts had ordered the applicant's psychiatric evaluation, required by law for any person prosecuted for aggravated murder. 25. Therefore, in a final decision of 25 October 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the previous decisions adopted in the case and sent the case back to the County Court, ordering the applicant's psychiatric evaluation. 26. On 10 March 2000 the file was sent to the Giurgiu County Court, which held the first hearing on 10 April 2000, and then several more, the applicant being absent due to his health problems. He was, however, represented in the proceedings mainly by D.U., a lawyer of his choice. 27. Evidence in the file showed that on 31 May 2000 he had been released from hospital. 28. On 20 November 2000 the County Court referred the case back to the prosecutor to order the psychiatric evaluation. 29. The prosecutor's appeal against this judgment was allowed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a final decision of 1 March 2001 which instructed the County Court to order the applicant's evaluation itself, as decided by the Supreme Court on 25 October 1999. 30. On 23 April 2001 the case was restored to the County Court's list of cases. 31. Some twenty hearings took place before the County Court, the case being repeatedly postponed due to the absence of the expert reports or for erroneous summoning of the parties. It appears that the applicant did not attend any of these hearings but was represented at most of them by D.U., his defence counsel. 32. On 15 June 2001 the applicant was hospitalised for another operation. 33. On 14 September 2001 the Forensic Institute estimated that the applicant required a four-month course of medical treatment that could not be administered in prison. However, on 29 October 2001, upon the County Court's request, it concluded that the applicant was fit to participate in the trial. 34. On 5 November 2001 the applicant appeared before the medical commission for his psychiatric examination. 35. On 27 March 2002 the psychiatric expert report was adduced in the case. It confirmed that the applicant had been mentally competent for legal purposes at the time of the victim's murder. The County Court heard evidence from the applicant's lawyer and the prosecutor on 20 May 2002 and pronounced its judgment on 10 June 2002. Due to the applicant's repeated absence on account of his medical condition, the County Court could not hear evidence from him in person. 36. The court re-examined the evidence already in the file and based its decision on the corroboration of witness testimonies gathered by the investigators and the courts, the expert reports concerning the victim's death and the applicant's behaviour towards his partner, towards his former wives (witnesses in the case) and during the criminal investigations and court proceedings – including the assessment of the answers he gave during a polygraph test that he had agreed to take on 12 June 1993 and in the course of which he had not been assisted by a lawyer – and the psychiatric evaluation of the applicant. The County Court found him guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment. 37. The applicant, through his lawyer, lodged an appeal against this judgment challenging the interpretation of facts and law by the County Court. He claimed his innocence and alternatively asked the court to reduce his sentence. His appeal was rejected as out of time in a decision of 13 November 2002 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 38. However, on 28 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice, upon the applicant's request, quashed the decision and referred the case back to the Bucharest Court of Appeal for a re-examination of the appeal. It considered that the applicant had respected the time limits for lodging his appeal. 39. The applicant did not attend any of the four hearings held before the Court of Appeal. I.C., his chosen representative, attended one of these hearings. The court noted that both the applicant and his lawyer alleged that their health had prevented them from attending the hearings. However, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant was not hospitalised at that time and that his lawyer had failed to designate a substitute, although the court had requested him to do so, in compliance with the law. 40. On 29 May 2003 the Court of Appeal designated of its own motion a representative for the applicant. The same day it examined and rejected the appeal, the applicant not being present at the hearing. It found that the evidence confirmed the applicant's guilt and that in the circumstances of the case the penalty imposed by the District Court was justified. The court‑appointed counsel pleaded for the applicant's innocence and alternatively asked the court to lower the sentence imposed. 41. The applicant appealed in cassation against this decision with the Supreme Court of Justice, challenging, as before, the interpretation of facts and law by the courts. The applicant did not attend any of the three hearings on the merits held in the case. At the first hearing, his personal assistant appeared (see paragraph 42 below), informed the Court of the applicant's poor health and asked for a postponement to allow the applicant to appoint a representative. The court postponed the case and appointed a lawyer for the applicant. Before the next hearing, I.C., the applicant's defence council who had represented him in the appeal above, made a written request for another postponement on the ground that he did not have time to study the whole file. In the presence of the court-appointed counsel and of the prosecutor, the court allowed the request. However, I.C. failed to appear at the last hearing of 12 February 2004. The court‑appointed counsel participated on behalf of the applicant. In a final decision rendered on the same day, after reassessing the evidence adduced in the case, the Supreme Court upheld the sentence. 42. On 28 August 2003 the applicant was examined by a commission of doctors from the Commission for the protection of handicapped persons. They established that his condition amounted to a severe functional deficiency which entitled him to a personal assistant. 43. On 19 February 2004 the applicant lodged a request for the postponement of the execution of the sentence for medical reasons. Later on he reformulated it, asking for the suspension of the sentence. 44. On 1 March 2004 the applicant was referred to the Forensic Institute for an opinion on whether he was fit to serve the sentence. 45. The Forensic Institute doctors re-examined the applicant and concluded that the stage of his illness permitted the continuation of his imprisonment and that his medical treatment could be continued in prison hospitals: “The pathology ... is severe, with unpredictable evolution, possibly towards a fatal prognosis which can happen regardless of whether [the applicant] is in prison or released.” The doctors submitted their report on 30 September 2004. 46. Based on this evidence, the applicant's request for suspension was rejected on 18 October 2004 by the Giurgiu County Court. The decision was upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 22 November 2004. The applicant did not appeal on points of law and thus this latter decision became final. 47. On 24 October 2006 the Forensic Institute started a new expert examination of the applicant in order to assess the possibility of interrupting the execution of his sentence. However, on 30 August 2006 the applicant refused to continue with this examination, as he considered that it would not benefit him. 48. On 10 March 2004 the applicant was imprisoned in order to serve the remainder of the sentence. He claimed that he had been placed in a cell with thirty beds arranged at three levels and with badly damaged mattresses, with two detainees in each bed, two toilets and no shower or warm water in the room. Due to his medical condition (as he had an artificial anus, he was unable to control his bowel movements) he asked to be transferred to a single-bed cell, but his request was rejected on the ground that no such cells existed in that penitentiary, except those for solitary confinement. 49. According to the applicant, he repeatedly requested to be examined by a doctor, but to no avail. He claimed that his medicine had not been provided by the authorities for lack of funds, and his family had had to send it to him. 50. The Government sent the applicant's medical file along with a letter from the Administration of Penitentiaries dated 26 September 2006 which detailed the medical care that the applicant received in prison. 51. It appears that from 10 to 22 March 2004 he was hospitalised in the Jilava Penitentiary Hospital where he was examined by the penitentiary doctors. He underwent laboratory tests and an oncological evaluation in public hospitals. 52. Subsequently he was examined periodically by the penitentiary doctors and often sent for specialist check-ups. 53. From 8 May to 22 July 2004 the applicant was hospitalised again in the Jilava Penitentiary Hospital. Laboratory analyses were performed and he was also sent to the public hospital for more detailed examinations. 54. He was hospitalised again in Jilava from 8 to 28 August 2004. On 18 August 2004 the doctors performed an abdominal ultrasound scan and recommended check-ups every three months. 55. On 6 August 2004 the applicant received from his family thirty tubes of Pentoxifilin. 56. His medical surveillance continued throughout 2004, 2005 and 2006. He underwent ophthalmologic check-ups, was seen by specialist doctors at least every other month, and received through the penitentiary pharmacies the prescribed medicines every month. 57. On 28 June 2005 the applicant informed the authorities that he refused to be examined in the Jilava Penitentiary Hospital, bearing in mind his criminal complaint of ill treatment against the penitentiary doctors (see paragraphs 61-62 below). 58. He was hospitalised again in Jilava from 23 to 31 August 2006. 59. It appears that the applicant received medicine from the penitentiary pharmacies as prescribed by the doctors that had examined him. 60. Between the periods of hospitalisation, the applicant was detained in the penitentiaries in Rahova and Giurgiu. 61. On 4 June 2004 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the penitentiary doctors that had operated on him while in detention. He accused them of intentional harm and malpractice during the surgical intervention. On 1 April 2005 the Bucharest Military Prosecutor's Office dismissed the complaint as out of time. The applicant appealed against this decision. In his letter to the Prosecutor's Office, he invoked the fact that he was “transported to and kept in the Bagdasar-Arseni Hospital under escort”. The criminal complaint was re-examined and dismissed again, on 28 July 2005, by the Bucharest Military Prosecutor. In a decision of 18 April 2006 the Bucharest Military County Court upheld the Prosecutor's decision, on the grounds that the accusation against the penitentiary doctors was unfounded and that, in any case, due to the time lapse between the operations and the lodging of the criminal complaint, responsibility for any of the alleged crimes was time-barred. 62. On 3 August 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Bucharest District Court under the Government's Ordinance no. 56/2003. He considered that his right to information, to the protection of his health and to a healthy environment had been infringed in prison. Furthermore he claimed that the prison conditions had amounted to torture. Accordingly, he argued that despite his severe medical condition the prison authorities had refused to put him in a cell by himself. He also claimed lack of access to his medical and criminal files. 63. In a decision of 17 October 2005 the District Court dismissed his action. It considered that the quality of medical care did not fall under the ordinance invoked; the applicant should have lodged an action in civil responsibility against the doctors. In any case, the evidence showed that the applicant had been given adequate medical care, seen by various doctors and examined and afforded the aftercare that had been prescribed. 64. The court dismissed as unfounded the applicant's allegation of lack of access to his medical file. It noted that the said file had been adduced in the case, both the applicant and his representative having thus had access to it. 65. Lastly, the District Court recalled that the Ordinance did not impose an obligation on the prison authorities to ensure access for the applicant to his criminal file. It recalled that the applicant had the right to designate a representative to study it. 66. The applicant's appeal was also dismissed by the Bucharest County Court, in a final decision of 5 December 2005. The County Court noted that the Penitentiary had refused to move the applicant to an individual cell on the ground that he would be soon transferred to a new section, to a room that would be better suited to his medical requirements. It appears that the court estimated that the applicant's allegations concerning the negative influence on his health of the conditions of his detention were unfounded. The court also recalled that it was for the prison authorities to provide his personal assistant. 67. In a letter of 16 December 2005 the Commission for the Protection of handicapped persons informed the applicant that as long as he was imprisoned he was not entitled to any special allowance for his own needs or for hiring a personal assistant, since it was for the penitentiary to provide care for him. 68. To date, the applicant is still in prison. It seems that he has not been transferred to an individual cell.

9. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Poznań. 10. In March 1988 the applicant got divorced. She has two children, who were at that time about two years old and four years old respectively. 11. On 22 May 1988 she filed with the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which she sought the division of the shared property of her and her former husband. 12. The court held hearings on 29 September and 11 November 1988, 4 April and 30 May 1989, 24 March, 24 May, 28 August and 25 October 1990, 4 February, 24 August and 18 November 1992, 27 January, 12 May and 19 August 1993, 9 November 1994, 11 January, 22 February, 26 April, 21 June and 25 August 1995, 9 February, 3 July, 16 October and 15 November 1996, 23 May and 31 December 1997, as well as 16 January 1998. 13. The court ordered 6 expert opinions concerning the value of the disputed property, out of which 3 had been prepared with a delay of five months. 14. On 16 January 1998 the court gave judgment. It granted the applicant, inter alia, the right to the flat in a housing co-operative and several objects located there. Her husband was granted, inter alia, a car and he was supposed to pay a certain sum to the applicant. The court pointed out that the parties to the proceedings had contested each other's statements with respect to most of the objects and on a few occasions had changed their own statements.

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Sarapul in the Udmurtiya Republic. 6. On 23 April 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic delivered a judgment in a criminal case against the applicant and his co-defendants, Mr T. and Mr Z. The court established that in February-March 2000 the applicant, the then Head of the Sarapul Town Property Management Committee, had detected certain irregularities in the privatisation of a local brewery which, in his assessment, might have rendered the privatisation void. The applicant had conspired with T. and Z. to approach the director of the brewery to extort 350,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from the head of the brewery in exchange for covering up those irregularities. The head had agreed to pay RUB 200,000. On the day of payment the applicant prepared an amended assessment report on the brewery’s immovable property, signed it in his office and affixed the seal of the Property Management Committee. Z. and T. delivered the report to the brewery head and received the stipulated amount. On leaving the head’s office they were apprehended by the police. 7. The trial court found the applicant guilty of having attempted to solicit, through an intermediary, a large sum of money for performing acts in the interests of the bribe-giver that were within the applicant’s official competence. The court established that those acts were punishable under Article 290 § 4 (c) and (d) of the Criminal Code (“Bribery”) in conjunction with Article 30 § 3 (“Preparation of a criminal offence and an attempted criminal offence”). The applicant was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment in a high-security colony. 8. The applicant, but not the prosecution, appealed against the first-instance judgment. 9. On 17 October 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held an appeal hearing in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer and a prosecutor. The applicant did not attend the hearing. In his oral submissions the prosecutor asked the court to recharacterise the applicant’s acts as attempted large-scale fraud committed by an organised group (Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 30 § 3), without reducing the sentence. Pursuant to Article 338 of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure, the court then asked the applicant’s lawyer to submit “additional explanations”. The lawyer contended that the granting of the prosecutor’s request would violate the applicant’s right to prepare his defence because neither the applicant nor the lawyer himself had been informed in advance of the nature and grounds of the new charge and they had not had adequate time to prepare their position. The lawyer relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) and Article 13 of the Convention. 10. The court then withdrew for deliberations and delivered its judgment by which it recharacterised the applicant’s acts as attempted large-scale fraud within the meaning of Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 30 § 3 and upheld the applicant’s imprisonment term. It reasoned as follows: “Having correctly established the facts of the case, the [trial] court, however, groundlessly characterised [the applicant’s] acts as an attempt to solicit a bribe in conspiracy with T. and Z. As the court acknowledged in the judgment, the brewery privatisation documents had contained ‘defects’ that had been too insignificant to entail annulment of the privatisation, and [the applicant], as the court established, had been perfectly aware of it. By setting up a deception scheme designed to get hold of a large amount of money because of the defects in the documents, [the applicant], acting in collusion with T. and Z., attempted to steal another person’s property on a large scale using his official position. These acts of [the applicant] are to be characterised under Articles 30 and 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code... Notwithstanding the change in the legal characterisation of the defendants’ acts, it must be recognised that the sentence imposed by the [trial] court corresponds to [the gravity of] the offence and the information on their personalities.”

6. The applicant was born in 1991. He is currently detained in a special facility for temporary detention of foreign nationals in Moscow. 7. The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek who lived in Jalal-Abad Region, Kyrgyzstan. In June 2010 the region was a scene of mass disorders and inter-ethnic clashes between ethnic Uzbeks and Kyrgyz. 8. In June 2010 the applicant was present at the barricades raised by ethnic Uzbeks near Suzak village. On 12 June 2010 he was wounded by a Molotov cocktail and was admitted to hospital on account of severe burns. He was released from hospital on 24 June 2010. 9. Eventually the applicant fled Kyrgyzstan to Russia, together with many other ethnic Uzbeks, to avoid ethnically motivated violence. 10. In 2012 the Kyrgyz authorities opened a criminal case against the applicant charging him with a number of violent crimes allegedly committed in the course of the riots of June 2010. On 26 June 2012 the Suzak District Court in the Jalal-Abad region ordered in absentia the applicant’s detention. 11. On 27 January 2015 the applicant was arrested in Moscow because he was not carrying an identity document. He was placed in the Special Facility for the Temporary Detention of Foreign Nationals, Moscow (“the detention centre for aliens”), run by the Russian Federal Migration Authority (“the FMS”). 12. On 28 January 2015 the Gagarinskiy District Court, Moscow (“the district court”) found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence punishable under Article 18.8 § 3 (“breach of rules on entry and stay of foreign nationals in Moscow, St Petersburg, the Moscow Region and the Leningrad Region”) of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) and sentenced him as follows: “[...] a punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) [combined] with administrative removal and placement in the centre for detention of foreign nationals, [where he will remain] until the entry into force of that decision and until administrative removal from the Russian Federation under Article 32.10 of the Code of Administrative Offences”. 13. On 4 February 2015 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision arguing that in Kyrgyzstan he would be subjected to ill‑treatment like many other ethnic Uzbeks. It appears that the appeal documentation reached the District Court on 12 February 2015. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 10 March 2015 but was then postponed until 20 March 2015. 14. On 10 March 2015 the Court granted the applicant’s request for interim measures and indicated to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Kyrgyzstan or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 15. On 12 March 2015 the applicant’s relatives were told by the officials of the detention centre for aliens that the applicant would be expelled from Russia on that day. At about 8.30 p.m. the applicant contacted his lawyer stating that he was in Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow. At 9.30 p.m. the lawyer arrived at the airport and was informed by the border control personnel that the applicant had not boarded the plane scheduled for Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. State bailiffs informed the lawyer that the applicant had been brought to Sheremetyevo but had later been returned to the detention centre for aliens. At 10 p.m. a duty officer of the detention centre confirmed to the lawyer that the applicant was back in the facility. 16. On 20 March 2015 the Moscow City Court (“the Appeal Court”) upheld the District Court’s decision of 28 January 2015 on appeal. The Appeal Court dismissed the applicant’s allegations of the risk of ill‑treatment stating that “the documents submitted by the [applicant’s] defence d[id] not demonstrate a breach of rights and freedoms of the person in question” and reasoned that “[a]ssessment of actions by law-enforcement agencies of a foreign State, as well as of [legal] acts carried out by them f[ell] outside the subject-matter jurisdiction of a court examining a case concerning an administrative offence committed in the Russian Federation by a foreign national”. 17. On 10 April 2015 the Government informed the Court that “the proceedings on the administrative removal of the applicant have been suspended” and that the applicant “continues to be held in the detention centre for foreign nationals of the Moscow department of the Federal Migration Service” (“the Moscow FMS”). 18. On 4 February 2015 the applicant applied for refugee status arguing that in Kyrgyzstan he would face persecution based on his ethnic origin. 19. On 12 March 2015 the Moscow FMS dismissed the applicant’s request for refugee status. The parties have not provided the Court with a copy of the decision. 20. The applicant challenged the decision before the Basmannyy District Court, Moscow. The proceedings are pending. 21. According to the applicant, on 24 February 2015 he was severely beaten by officers of a special police squad in the detention centre for aliens. He received rubber-truncheon blows to his back, buttocks and heels. 22. The applicant notified his lawyer accordingly and provided mobile phone photos of his injured back. 23. On 25 February 2015 two lawyers visited the applicant along with several other persons awaiting expulsion in the detention centre for aliens. The applicant and other detainees informed them that regular beatings of detainees had begun on 17 February 2015 following unsuccessful suicide attempts by several inmates. The applicant claimed that the officers of the special police squad had beaten him on 24 February 2015 with rubber truncheons on his back, heels and buttocks. 24. On 26 February 2015 the lawyers reported the beatings to the main investigative department of the Moscow Investigative Committee. They emphasised that the medical staff of the detention centre had refused to enter the detainees’ injuries into the medical logs. The lawyers requested that the beatings of the detainees, including the applicant, be investigated. In support of their request they enclosed, among other things, the applicant’s photos showing injuries to his back. 25. On 19 March 2015 the lawyers’ complaint was forwarded to the Troitskiy district investigation department of the Moscow Investigative Committee. 26. It appears that no investigation into the applicant’s alleged beatings in the detention centre for aliens has been instituted.

6. The applicants were born in 1977, 1976, 1974 and 1968 respectively and were serving their prison sentences in Nazilli at the time of their applications to the Court. 7. The police officers at the Anti-Terror branch of the Antalya Security Directorate arrested Tayyip Ölmez, Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın and placed them in custody on 22 February, 13 March, 12 April and 24 April 1998 respectively. 8. The Antalya Magistrates’ Court ordered the remand in custody of Tayyip Ölmez, Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın on 27 February, 22 March, 21 April and 29 April 1998 respectively. 9. By indictments dated 24 March, 8 May, 17 May and 22 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court accused Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın of membership of an illegal organisation and Tayyip Ölmez of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that Vahdettin Budak be convicted and sentenced under Article 125 of Criminal Code. In respect of Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçin, the public prosecutor requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 §2 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. As for Tayyip Ölmez, the public prosecutor requested that he be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. 10. On 11 November 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced Vahdettin Budak to life, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın to twelve years and six months and Tayyip Ölmez to five years’ imprisonment. 11. On 11 October 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court. On 2 November 1999 the judgment of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the İzmir State Security Court. 12. On 29 March 2005 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that all the applicants, except for Mr Vahdettin Budak, were released from prison.

4. The applicants were born in 1930 and 1932 respectively and live in Moscow. 5. In 2000 the applicants bought a flat in a block of flats under construction from ZAO Otdelstroy, a private company. 6. On 6 June 2002 the applicants sued ZAO Otdelstroy claiming that the flat had a number of construction defects. They requested repairs to be done and claimed damages. 7. On 9 July 2002 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) dismissed their claims. 8. On 28 October 2002 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s appeal, set the judgment aside and remitted the case for fresh examination. 9. At the hearing of 17 December 2002 the applicants further specified their claims, following which the court adjourned the hearing to enable the respondent to familiarise itself with the changes. 10. The hearing of 21 January 2003 did not take place as one of the applicants failed to appear. 11. On 6 February 2003 the respondent motioned for involvement of three co-respondents which included two private companies and a municipal agency. 12. The hearing of 19 February 2003 did not take place due to the judge’s illness. 13. On 18 March 2003 the court granted the above motion and the applicant’s motion for filing of some additional documents and adjourned the hearing. 14. The applicants again specified their claims on 14 April 2003. 15. On 22 April 2003 the proceedings were adjourned to enable one of the co-respondents to study the case file. 16. The hearing of 28 May 2003 was adjourned at the request of one of the respondents in order to enable it to draw up an act for elimination of the defects in the applicants’ flat. The applicants did not object. 17. On 17 June 2003 the court scheduled a construction expert examination. The proceedings were resumed on 23 September 2003 when the court again adjourned the hearing following additional specification of the applicants’ claims. 18. On 10 October 2003 the District Court granted the claims in part, following which the parties appealed. On 18 December 2003 the appeal court sent the case back to the first instance for consideration of the applicants’ objections to the hearing minutes. On 4 February 2004 the hearing at the appeal court did not take place following lack of due notification and the resulting default in appearance of the respondents. On 24 February 2004 the Moscow City Court overturned the judgment of 10 October 2003 and ordered new examination at the trial court. 19. The hearing of 12 May 2004 did not take place due to the respondents’ default in appearance. 20. The hearings scheduled for 3 August, 24 September and 15 November 2004 did not take place as the applicants and one of the respondents failed to appear. 21. On 20 December 2004 the court decided that the defaulting parties had been duly summoned and left the claims without consideration. 22. Neither of the parties provided a copy of the above decision or the hearing minutes recorded between 12 May and 20 December 2004.

5. The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Štore. 6. On 23 November 1990 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT. 7. On 30 December 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Baisc Court (Temeljno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 6,700,000 tolars (approximately 28,000 euros) for the injuries sustained. Before 28 June 1994, the day the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the court held four hearings and appointed a road traffic expert and a medical expert. On 1 July 1994 the applicant submitted a preliminary written submission. On 5 July 1994 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 30 October 1994. 8. On 10 October 1994 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed. On 14 June 1995 the court allowed both appeals in part and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 July 1995. 9. On 1 January 1995 the reorganisation of the Slovenian judicial system took effect. After the case had been remitted to the first-instance court, it was initially assigned to the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) but after the applicant raised his claim in preliminary written submissions of 31 August 1995, the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju). Between 31 August 1995 and 6 June 1997 the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing. Between 12 January 1996 and 29 August 1997 he lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. Of the three hearings held between 12 February 1996 and 4 September 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts. On 25 September 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was assigned to a new district court judge. At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 5 November 1997. 10. On 10 November 1997 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court and requested that the first-instant court corrected its judgment. ZT cross-appealed. On 21 November 1997 the first-instance court corrected the judgment. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 December 1997 On 18 March 1998 the Celje Higher Court upheld both appeals, annulled the judgment of 25 September 1997 and returned the case to first-instance court for a new trial. The decision was served on the applicant on 13 May 1998. 11. Between 6 July 1998 and 17 December 1999 the applicant made eight requests that a date be set for a hearing. Between 6 July 1998 and 19 January 2000 he lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. Of the four hearings held between 15 September 1998 and 3 February 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and a road traffic expert. At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 27 March 2000. 12. On 6 April 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed. On 7 February 2001 the Celje Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, upheld ZT’s appeal in part, and lowered the damages awarded. The judgment was served on the applicant on 13 March 2001. 13. On 27 March 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). On 18 March 2002 the court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 23 May 2002. 14. On 23 October 2002, the first-instance court issued a decision on costs and expenses. 15. The applicant appealed. The Celje Higher Court dismissed the appeal on 6 November 2003. The decision was served on the applicant on 5 January 2004.

5. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Plovdiv. 6. On 30 November 1992 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owners of a dwelling, purchased by the applicant's father form a subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence in 1967, brought an action for restitution against the applicant and Ms P.P., as heirs of the applicant's father, seeking restitution and a declaration that the 1967 transaction was null and void. 7. Between February 1993 and January 1997 at least sixteen hearings were held. At least four of them were adjourned due to improper summoning and one upon the applicant's request. 8. In a judgment of 15 May 1997 the Plovdiv District Court dismissed the claim. 9. On appeal, at least six hearings were held before the Plovdiv Regional Court. One hearing was adjourned because the expert opinion had not been obtained in time, one was adjourned due to improper summoning, and one upon the applicant's request. 10. In a judgment of 28 December 1999 the Regional Court upheld the previous court's judgement. 11. On further appeal, on 10 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination due to unspecified procedural breaches. 12. By a judgment of 30 November 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court set aside the judgment of 1997 and declared the plaintiffs owners of the disputed real estate. 13. On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's judgment. 14. On an unspecified date the Executive Agency “Management of the Private State Property of the Ministry of Defence” filed a request for reopening, claiming that under the relevant legislation it should have been a party to the proceedings as a successor of the relevant subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence. 15. On 14 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation granted reopening, set aside the judgment of 23 April 2003 and remitted the case to the Plovdiv Regional Court for new examination. The court held that in February 2000 the Executive Agency “Management of the Private State Property of the Ministry of Defence” had succeeded the subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, which had been constituted as a party in the proceedings in 1993, and therefore should have been summoned in its stead. 16. By a judgment of 16 December 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court again declared the plaintiffs owners of the real estate. On 17 April 2006 the applicant appealed. 17. By a final judgment of 13 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the lower court's judgment and rejected the plaintiffs' claims, thus deciding the case in favour of the applicant. 18. The number of hearings held between December 1999 and April 2003 and between May 2004 and April 2007 is not clear. 19. On 6 June 2007 the plaintiffs filed a request for reopening. 20. By a judgment of 6 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the request.

10. The applicant was born on 14 June 1988 and lives in Remire Montjoly in French Guiana, a French overseas “département and region” in South America. 11. He arrived in French Guiana from Brazil in 1992, at the age of four, and attended school there for a year before returning to Brazil in 1994. 12. In 1995, in possession of a tourist visa, the applicant returned to Cayenne in French Guiana, where he joined his parents, both of whom had permanent residence cards, and his two sisters and two brothers, one of whom had French nationality while the other three, having been born on French soil, were entitled to apply for it. His maternal grandparents remained in Brazil. 13. The applicant attended primary then secondary school in French Guiana from 1996 to 2004. As he had no proper residence papers and could not apply for them until he came of age (see paragraph 26 below), he had to leave school in 2004, at the age of 16. 14. On 25 May 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a drug offence. By an order of 17 May 2006, the Cayenne Youth Court placed him under court supervision and barred him from leaving French Guiana. 15. In a judgment of 25 October 2006, the Cayenne Youth Court sentenced the applicant to two months’ imprisonment, suspended, and two years’ probation, together with the obligation to report to the authorities and to undergo training, for unauthorised possession of cocaine while under 18 years of age. In execution of that judgment, the applicant began a vocational training course that was scheduled to last from 13 October 2006 to 30 March 2007, as part of the socio-professional guidance and integration scheme in French Guiana. 16. On 25 January 2007 the applicant and his mother were stopped at a road check. As the applicant was unable to show proof that his presence on French soil was legal, he was arrested. 17. The same day, at 10 a.m., an administrative removal order (arrêté préfectoral de reconduite à la frontière) and an administrative detention order were issued against him. The removal order stated: “– Having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and in particular Articles 3 and 8, ... – Whereas, according to report no. 56 of 25/01/2007, drawn up by the DDPAF [Département Border Police] of French Guiana, the above-mentioned person: – is unable to prove that he entered French territory legally; – has remained in French territory illegally; – Whereas, in the circumstances of the present case, an administrative removal order must be issued against the alien concerned, – Whereas that person has been informed of his right to submit observations in writing, – Whereas, in the circumstances of the present case, there is no disproportionate interference with the person’s right to family life, – Whereas the alien does not allege that he would be exposed to punishment or treatment contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of his return to his country of origin (or the country of habitual residence to which he is effectively entitled to return), ... [The applicant’s] removal is hereby ordered.” 18. On 26 January 2007, at 3.11 p.m., the applicant sent two faxes to the Cayenne Administrative Court. One contained an application for judicial review of the removal order, calling for its cancellation and the issue of a residence permit. In support of his application the applicant alleged in particular that the order was in breach of Article L. 511-4 (2) of the Code regulating the entry and residence of aliens and asylum-seekers (Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile – CESEDA) (see paragraph 26 below), and also, relying on Article 8 of the Convention, that the authorities had manifestly misjudged the consequences of his removal for his personal and family life. He explained that he had entered French territory before the age of 13, that he had lived there on a habitual basis ever since, that both his parents had permanent residence cards, and that one of his brothers had acquired French citizenship and his other brother and sisters had been born on French soil. He further submitted that he was under an obligation to abide, for two years, by the conditions of his probation, failing which he would go to prison, and that, as required by the probation order, he had already begun a course in mechanics. The other fax contained an urgent application for the court to suspend the enforcement of the removal order in view of the serious doubts about its lawfulness. In support of his application the applicant again relied on Article 8 of the Convention and repeated the arguments mentioned in the application for judicial review, which showed that most of his private and family life had been spent in French Guiana. 19. On 26 January 2007, at 4 p.m., the applicant was removed to Belem in Brazil. 20. On the same day, the urgent-applications judge at the Cayenne Administrative Court declared the urgent application for a suspension of the applicant’s removal devoid of purpose as he had already been deported. The applicant immediately applied for legal aid to appeal to the Conseil d’Etat against that ruling. By a decision of 6 March 2007, the President of the Legal Aid Office of the Conseil d’Etat rejected his application for “lack of serious grounds likely to convince the court”. 21. On 6 February 2007 the applicant lodged an urgent application for protection of a fundamental freedom (requête en référé liberté) with the Cayenne Administrative Court. Referring to the Convention and to the Court’s case-law, he complained of a serious and clearly unlawful interference by the authorities with his right to lead a normal family life and his right to an effective remedy. He requested that the prefect of French Guiana be instructed to organise his return there within twenty-four hours of notification of the order, to enable him to defend himself effectively regarding the alleged violations of the Convention, and to be reunited with his family while the prefecture examined his right to stay in French Guiana. By an order of 7 February 2007, the urgent-applications judge at the Cayenne Administrative Court rejected the application, considering in essence that the measure the applicant sought would to all intents and purposes amount to a permanent measure, whereas the urgent-applications judge could only order interim measures. 22. In August 2007 the applicant returned to French Guiana illegally. 23. On 4 October 2007 the Cayenne Administrative Court held a hearing in which it examined the applicant’s earlier application for judicial review (see paragraph 18 above). In a judgment delivered on 18 October 2007, it set aside the removal order. It noted in particular that the applicant claimed that he had returned to France in 1995, at the age of seven, and had resided there on a habitual basis thereafter, and that in support of his claims he had produced school certificates the authenticity of which the prefect did not dispute. It found it established that the applicant’s mother had a permanent residence card and that his father also lived in French Guiana. The court further noted that, according to a court supervision order produced by the applicant, he had been arrested in French Guiana in 2005 and prohibited from leaving the territory. It found that the applicant fulfilled the conditions provided for in Article L. 511-4 (2) of the CESEDA, which meant that the removal order should not have been issued against him. In response to the applicant’s request to instruct the prefect of French Guiana to issue him with a residence permit within a month of the judgment being served, the court considered that its decision did not necessarily entail the issue of a temporary residence permit as it concerned only the setting aside of the removal order. The court did, however, set a three-month time-limit within which the prefect was to resolve the question of the applicant’s residence status. 24. On 16 June 2009 the prefecture of French Guiana issued the applicant with a “visitor’s” residence permit, which was valid for one year but did not allow him to work. An investigation revealed that the authorities had issued the “visitor’s” permit by mistake. On 23 September 2009 the applicant was issued with a new residence permit for “private and family life”. It was backdated to June 2009, valid for one year and allowed him to work. That residence permit was not renewed upon its expiry on 15 June 2010 because of a problem with the documents required for its renewal. On 14 October 2010 the applicant was issued with a new residence permit valid from 16 June 2010 to 15 June 2011, subsequently renewed until 15 June 2012. The applicant now holds a renewable residence permit for “private and family life”.

9. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Opole, Poland. 10. On 16 June 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by the police. On 17 June 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his complaint about placing him in police custody. 11. On 17 June 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) charged the applicant with aggravated fraud and remanded him in custody. The charges related to a period between 30 January and 3 March 1995 when the applicant, together with his accomplices, allegedly defrauded several individuals and businesses by obtaining from them under false pretences cash, automobiles, furniture, computers and other goods of a total value of PLN 1,050,000. In addition, the applicant was charged with possession of a forged passport. The Regional Prosecutor considered that the applicant’s detention on remand was warranted by the fact that he was charged with several criminal acts which caused a significant danger to society (stopień społecznego niebezpieczeństwa jest znaczny), as he had acted within a criminal organisation and had obtained valuable goods. In addition, the applicant’s criminal activity took place over a long time and it was probable that if released he would collude and try to destroy evidence. 12. On 10 July 1995 the applicant applied to the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor for release from detention. On 12 July 1995 the Regional Prosecutor rejected the application. He dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s claims that poor health and the financial situation of his family required his release. Moreover, the applicant’s contention that his ill‑health called for release would be decided after a panel of medical experts had examined him. 13. On 24 and 26 July 1995 the applicant again made applications to the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor for release from detention. On 26 July 1995 his requests were dismissed. The Regional Prosecutor relied on a medical opinion issued by the Wrocław Prison Hospital, which stated that the applicant could remain in detention. In addition, he considered that since the applicant’s daughter and his cohabitee lived with the latter’s parents, there was no need for him to be released to care for them. 14. On 2 August 1995 the applicant made an application for release from detention. On 4 August 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor rejected his application. The prosecutor referred to the medical opinion of 19 July 1995, which confirmed that the applicant’s state of health allowed the continuation of his detention. Furthermore, he considered that the fact that the applicant’s daughter had recently received medical treatment in the infant pathology ward of the Wrocław Regional Hospital did not constitute a ground for the applicant’s release. The prosecutor also pointed out that the applicant’s cohabitee cared for his daughter. 15. On 9 August 1995 the Wrocław Appellate Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Prosecutor’s decision of 26 July 1995. The Appellate Prosecutor considered that the evidence showed that the applicant had committed the criminal offences with which he was charged. Moreover, the state of health of his daughter did not require that he be released. The prosecutor was also of a view that the applicant’s detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings. 16. On 23 August 1995 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint about his detention. On 31 August 1995 the court transmitted it to the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor to consider it as a request to change the preventive measure applied to the applicant. On 1 September 1995 the prosecutor rejected the request. He dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s claims that his own state of health as well as that of several members of his family required his release from detention. In this connection, the prosecutor referred to medical opinions, which stated that the applicant was neither mentally ill nor retarded and that his detention would not cause any risk to his health and life. Furthermore, he considered that the investigation of the applicant’s claim that his detention constituted a hardship for his family had showed that it was unsubstantiated. 17. On 6 September 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court allowed the request submitted by the prosecution service and extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 November 1995. The court considered that the evidence collected in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against the applicant. It also relied on a significant danger to society caused by the criminal offences in question and the necessity to ensure the proper course of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the investigation of the case would have to be continued in order to clarify the applicant’s role in the commission of the criminal offences and to identify individuals who would be charged with receiving stolen goods from the applicant. Finally, the court considered that the applicant’s case did not disclose any of the grounds for release from detention listed in Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. danger to the detainee’s life or health and extreme hardship caused to either the detainee or his family. On 6 October 1995 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Regional Court. (b) The bill of indictment 18. On 30 December 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor filed with the Wrocław Regional Court a bill of indictment against the applicant. 19. On 31 January 1996 the applicant asked the Wrocław Regional Court to release him from detention. On 5 February 1996 the court dismissed his request. It relied on a significant danger to society caused by the criminal offences with which the applicant was charged and the evidence on which they were based. The court was also of the view that the applicant’s family did not suffer hardship which would justify his release. 20. On 15 February 1996 the applicant again filed an application for release but on 22 February 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court rejected it. On 29 February 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. The court observed that the applicant could apply for bail. 21. On 7 March 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court rejected the application for release filed by the applicant on 26 February 1996. On 1 April 1996 the court rejected the application lodged on 19 March 1996. 22. On 19 April 1996 the applicant made a further application to the Wrocław Regional Court for release from detention. On 25 April 1996 the court dismissed his application. It referred to the previous court decisions refusing his requests for release. Moreover, the court considered that the claim that the applicant’s father suffered hardship was unsubstantiated. (c) The hearings 23. The date of the first hearing was fixed for 15 April 1996. However, it was cancelled because one of the defendants was ill and could not attend it. 24. On 16 May 1996 the applicant made an application to the Wrocław Regional Court for release from detention. On 30 May 1996 the court dismissed his request. It relied on a significant danger to society caused by the criminal offences with which the applicant was charged and the evidence on which they were based. The court further considered that the applicant’s detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. In addition, it observed that the applicant’s failure to pay child support did not warrant his release, as one of his children was in receipt of child support payments from the Child Support Fund (Fundusz Alimentacyjny). 25. On 31 June 1996 the Regional Court held a hearing. It was adjourned because two defendants failed to attend it. 26. On 8 July 1996 the applicant made an application to the Wrocław Regional Court for release from detention. On 15 July 1996 the court rejected his request. It relied on the grounds for continuing the applicant’s detention listed in previous court decisions. 27. On 5 August 1996 the applicant asked the Wrocław Regional Court to release him from detention. On 8 August 1996 the court dismissed his request. It considered that the evidence collected in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against the applicant. As the charges could lead to a severe prison sentence, there was a risk of absconding. Furthermore, the court was of the view that the applicant’s inability to provide care to his children over a long period of time did not result in exceptional hardship for his family. 28. On 12 August 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s application for release from detention filed on 6 August 1996. The court relied on the evidence collected in the case, which in its opinion supported the charges laid against the applicant. In addition, it considered that the prospect of a severe penalty, which could be imposed on the applicant, could prompt him to abscond. 29. On 19 August 1996 the Vice-President of the Wrocław Court of Appeal informed the Ministry of Justice and the applicant that the applicant’s case did not disclose that the proceedings had taken unreasonably long. In particular, he pointed out that thirteen individuals were accused in the case, the case file consisted of seventeen volumes and evidence had to be taken from fifty‑eight witnesses. Furthermore, the Vice‑President observed that the first hearing had been cancelled because one of the defendants had been ill. The second hearing had been adjourned until 30 August 1996 as two defendants had failed to attend it. Finally, he stated that “the judge rapporteur is dealing with twenty-five other cases and therefore is not able to decide this case sooner than is possible”. 30. On 30 August 1996 the Regional Court held a hearing. It was adjourned because some of the defendants failed to attend it. 31. On 3 September 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 8 August 1996 rejecting his application for release from detention. The appellate court quashed the impugned decision and instructed the trial court to reconsider the applicant’s request. It acknowledged that “in the present case the detention on remand has lasted quite long”. In addition, the appellate court considered that the trial court’s statement on the applicant’s intention to abscond was not precise enough. As the applicant’s detention had already lasted sixteen months and as he was not charged with a serious offence, the mere reference to the possibility that the applicant could abscond because of the prospect of a severe penalty was not sufficient. The appellate court also observed that the trial court had not considered whether another preventive measure could replace the applicant’s detention on remand. 32. On 12 September 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s four applications for release submitted in August and September 1996. The court considered that the charges against the applicant were sufficiently supported by the evidence. Moreover, the difficulties in finding the applicant’s place of residence during the investigative stage of the proceedings and the prospect of a severe penalty showed that he could go into hiding if released from detention. The court further noted that the applicant could not be released on bail as he had stated that he had no funds to pay it. Finally, it considered that there was no evidence pointing towards the existence of any of the grounds for release provided for by Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 33. The hearing held on 13 September 1996 was adjourned until 27 September 1996 as some of the defendants failed to attend it because of ill health. 34. During the hearing held on 27 September 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court rejected the applicant’s application for release from detention. The hearing was adjourned because some of the defendants failed to attend it. 35. On 7 October 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 12 September 1996. The appellate court observed that the applicant’s release would delay the proceedings, as his cohabitee lived in Opole. It also noted that the applicant had contributed to the delay in the proceedings because on numerous occasions he had submitted requests and appeals. In addition, on several occasions a case file had been transmitted from the trial court to the Wrocław Detention Centre after the applicant had asked to consult it. 36. On 17 October 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 27 September 1996. The appellate court referred to previous court decisions rejecting his applications for release from detention. The court further noted that although the length of the applicant’s detention could be worrying (trwa już niepokojąco długo), it had not been caused by the inactivity of the trial court. Moreover, the appellate court recommended that “more energetic steps” be taken to expedite the proceedings. Finally, it acknowledged that the state of health of the applicant’s cohabitee and his daughter was not good. However, the court was of the view that the applicant’s release would not contribute to the improvement of their health. 37. In a letter of 23 October 1996 the President of the Wrocław Regional Court advised the applicant that the trial court could not be blamed for the delay in the proceedings. He pointed out that the court had fixed numerous hearings, which had been adjourned because of the absence of defendants who had been ill. 38. During the hearing held on 25 October 1996 the applicant applied for bail. He proposed that the bail be set at PLN 2,000. However, the Wrocław Regional Court rejected the application. It gave the following reasons for its decision: “The circumstances raised by the accused in his application have already been considered by both the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal. Therefore, taking into account the fact that no new circumstances have taken place, it should be assumed that the reasons for continuing detention on remand have not ceased to exist.” 39. During the hearing held on 12 December 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court rejected the applicant’s application for release from detention. The hearing was adjourned because some of the defendants failed to attend it. 40. On 31 December 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court decided to request the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) to extend the applicant’s detention on remand. 41. On 7 January 1997 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 12 December 1996. The appellate court recalled that during the preceding ten months it had been considering on a monthly basis the applicant’s appeals against the trial court’s refusals to release him. It considered that the factual and legal circumstances concerning the applicant’s detention had not changed. (d) The Supreme Court extends the applicant’s detention 42. On 24 January 1997 the Supreme Court allowed the Regional Court’s request and extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 24 July 1997. It considered that the prolongation of the applicant’s detention was justified by the evidence, the possibility that he could go into hiding and the complexity of the case. It also observed that the delay in the proceedings was caused by the behaviour of defendants who had failed to attend hearings. The Supreme Court further reflected on the legality of the applicant’s detention between 1 and 24 January 1997. The relevant part of the court’s reasoning may be summarised as follows: The Supreme Court, noting that the application was filed on 31 December 1996 but posted as late as 13 January 1997, first considered what was the proper date of ‘lodging’ such an application for the purposes of Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court next observed that, depending on the answer to this question, it would have to determine the legal consequences of a potential failure on the part of the Wrocław Regional Court to respect the rule laid down in Article 10 (a) § 2 of the Interim Law of 1 December 1995, which stated that in cases where no request for a further prolongation of detention on remand had been ‘lodged’, the detention on remand had to be lifted and the person concerned released not later than on 1 January 1997. The Supreme Court considered that it should also deal with the question of whether it was competent to rule on the application if it had been ‘lodged’ after the expiry of the term referred to in Article 10 (a) of the Interim Law of 1 December 1995, i.e. after 1 January 1997. Referring to the first question, the Supreme Court held that the proper date of ‘lodging’ an application under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had to be deemed either the date of posting the request or the date of submitting it to the registry of the Supreme Court since to hold otherwise would mean leaving a detainee without any guarantee that the Supreme Court was properly supervising his detention. Moreover, if the requesting court was not bound by any time-limits for submitting its application, detention, the most severe among the preventive measures, might continue for an unspecified and unlimited time outside the Supreme Court’s supervision. In consequence, an application under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a mere ‘proposal’ to continue detention, would, for all practical purposes, transform into a basis for continuing detention. Clearly, that was not the intention of the legislator. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that since in the applicant’s case no application for a further prolongation of his detention was ‘lodged’ before 1 January 1997, the applicant’s (and his co-defendants’) detention from that date to the date of its present decision lacked any legal basis and was, accordingly, unlawful. It went on to find that it was, nevertheless, competent to deal with the application lodged outside the relevant date. It considered that a lower court’s obligation to release a detainee in case of its failure properly to lodge an application under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was one thing, but its right to make such an application at any time was another. In the Supreme Court’s opinion, the application in question should be deemed a “fresh application” and be examined as such. 43. On 28 January 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court held a hearing. 44. On 10 February 1997 the President of the Wrocław Court of Appeal informed the applicant that his complaints about his unjustified detention on remand were unsubstantiated. The President also recalled that on 24 January 1997 the Supreme Court had prolonged the applicant’s detention and that no hearings could be held in his case at the time when the Supreme Court had been considering the request to extend his detention. In addition, he observed that the next hearing was scheduled for 17 March 1997. 45. On 24 February 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s challenge to one of the judges considering his case. 46. On 17 March 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court held a hearing. It was adjourned because some of the defendants failed to attend it. 47. During the hearings held on 17 April and 28 May 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s applications for release from detention. The latter hearing was adjourned because some of the defendants failed to attend it. 48. The hearing held on 8 July 1997 was adjourned because some of the defendants did not attend it. 49. During the hearing held on 8 September 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court decided to sever the charges laid against three co-defendants and to consider them in separate proceedings because the co-defendants’ numerous failures to attend hearings resulted in the delay in deciding the applicant’s case. Thereafter, the proceedings were continued against the applicant and eight co‑defendants. 50. The next hearings were held on 13, 28 October and 25 November 1997. The hearing scheduled for 18 November 1997 was cancelled. 51. On 19 December 1997 the hearing was held before the Regional Court. It decided to request the Supreme Court to prolong the applicant’s detention on remand. 52. On 15 January 1998 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 March 1998. 53. During the hearing held on 30 January 1998 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s requests that the charges against him be decided in separate proceedings and that he be released from detention. 54. On 3 and 17 March 1998 hearings took place before the trial court. (e) The end of pre-trial detention 55. On 20 March 1998 the applicant was released from detention. 56. Subsequently, hearings were held on 17 April, 15 May, 5 June, 2 July, 3 September, 6 October, 30 November and 1 December 1998. 57. In the course of 1999 the Wrocław Regional Court held hearings on the following dates: 5 January, 4 February, 11 March, 14 April, 7 and 28 May, 9 June, 7 September, 29 October and 15 December. The hearings held on 7 September and 29 October 1999 were adjourned because a judge was ill. 58. On 14 January 2000 the court held a hearing. 59. During the hearings held between 25 November 1997 and 14 January 2000 the Wrocław Regional Court took evidence from more than fifty witnesses. (f) The conviction 60. On 21 January 2000 the Wrocław Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment and to a fine. On 14 April 2000 the applicant appealed against his conviction. 61. On 24 August 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 62. On 24 October 2000 the Court received the applicant’s letter of 9 October 2000. The front of the envelope in which the letter was delivered bears a stamp in Polish: “Opole Detention Centre, Ward III, Received on 09.10.2000.” On the back of the envelope there is a stamp in Polish: “Censored. Opole, 19.10.2000”. The top edge of the envelope is sealed with Sellotape. The envelope is postmarked 19 October 2000.

8. The applicant is a German national, born in 1938 and living in Mettmann. 9. In a letter of 30 December 1985 addressed to the Rheinprovinz Pension Office (Landesversicherungsanstalt), the applicant and her husband, born in 1927, declared that for the purposes of entitlement to a widow’s or a widower’s pension the statutory rules still in force should continue to apply in future (see below, “Relevant domestic law”). 10. On 4 March 1986, following her husband’s death, the applicant applied with the Rheinprovinz Insurance Office for the payment of a survivor’s pension. 11. On 10 June 1986 the Insurance Office issued a decision granting the applicant a survivor’s pension as from 1 March 1986. The Office, referring to the relevant provision of the Workers’ Pension (Reform) Act, further stated that in case that the person concerned had other earned income or income in lieu of earned income, the payment of the survivor’s pension was not suspended during the first year after the spouse’s death. During the second year, the survivor’s pension was reduced by a specific percentage in relation to a dynamic exonerated amount. 12. On 20 June 1986 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint (Widerspruch) with the Pensions Office, which was dismissed on 24 March 1987. 13. By submissions dated 27 April 1987, the applicant, represented by counsel, instituted proceedings with the Düsseldorf Social Court, challenging the above decisions issued by the Rheinprovinz Pension Office. She maintained in particular that the underlying legislation, especially the age-limit for opting out of the new system, was unconstitutional, i.e. in breach of the right to property. In this respect, the applicant noted that, according to information provided by the Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Matters, a constitutional complaint concerning the above issue was pending before the Federal Constitutional Court. She suggested that the proceedings before the Social Court be suspended to await the outcome of the said constitutional complaint proceedings. With her action, the applicant also objected to the calculation of the pension in question. 14. On 24 June 1987 the Düsseldorf Social Court suspended the proceedings pursuant to Section 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung - see below, Relevant domestic law). 15. On 14 August 1987 the Rheinprovinz Pensions Office reassessed the applicant’s survivor’s pension. Taking her other income into account, the Office suspended the monthly payment of DEM 967.10. 16. By submissions of 10 September 1987, the applicant filed an action with the Düsseldorf Social Court against the decision of 14 August 1987. She again suggested that the proceedings be suspended pending constitutional complaint proceedings in a similar case. The second set of proceedings was, thereupon, also suspended. 17. On 26 February 1993 the applicant requested the Social Court to resume the suspended proceedings. She noted that in the meantime the Federal Constitutional Court had not taken any decisions concerning the legal provision at issue in her case. On 17 March 1993 the Social Court informed the applicant that the proceedings had been resumed. 18. On 22 July 1993 the Social Court inquired with the Federal Constitutional Court about the state of the constitutional complaint proceedings concerning certain aspects of the reform of the rules governing a survivor’s pension. On 5 August 1993 the Federal Constitutional Court informed the Social Court that two proceedings had terminated in 1987 and that it envisaged rendering a decision in three further cases in 1994. 19. On 17 September 1993 the Social Court held an oral hearing. Following discussion, the parties agreed to a further suspension of the proceedings. 20. On 5 June 1996 the applicant requested the Social Court to resume the proceedings. She submitted that, having regard to the length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court and considering her age, she could no longer be expected to wait. On 18 June 1996 the Social Court informed the applicant that the proceedings had been resumed. On 5 February 1998 the Social Court inquired again with the Federal Constitutional Court about the state of proceedings before it. 21. On 18 February 1998 the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed two constitutional complaints. It found that the rules introduced by the Survivor’s Pension and Educational Periods Act, in so far as they provided for a suspension of the payment of the survivor’s pension in case of other earned income or income in lieu of earned income, were compatible with the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). 22. On 7 May 1998 the Social Court forwarded the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision to the applicant’s counsel and requested him for comments. After a reminder, the applicant’s counsel asked for an extension of the time limit. After a further reminder, the applicant’s counsel informed the Social Court on 13 October 1998 that he was no longer representing the applicant. 23. On 17 March 1999 the Social Court dismissed the applicants’ actions. It found in particular that in 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court had declared the age-limit of 50 years compatible with the Basic Law. It held that the Federal Constitutional Court’s decisions of 1998 had no impact on its decision, as they did not concern the issues raised in the applicant’s action.

4. The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Vinnytsya. 5. In 1992 the applicant requested the State Cooperative Association “Zakhidelevatoragrospetsbud” (the “Association”; Державно-кооперативне об'єднання по агропромисловому будівництву “Західелеваторагроспецбуд”), his employer at the material time, to grant him and his family priority in the allocation of housing to employees. Subsequently his request was allowed on account of the fact that his father had fought and perished in World War II. 6. In January 1997 the Association attributed the applicant apartment no. 43 in a new building being constructed by several investors, including the Association. However, in September 1997 the Association transferred this apartment to another investor, as the value of its contribution into the construction project had been reassessed at a lower level. 7. On 1 March 1998 the Association transferred its assets to the State Company “Vinelevatorbud” (the “Company”; Державне підприємство “Вінелеваторбуд”) and ceased carrying out any business. However, the liquidation formalities were not completed. 8. On 9 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Staromisky District Court of Vinnytsya (the “District Court”; Староміський районний суд м. Вінниця) against the Association, asserting his rights to apartment no. 43. 9. Between December and June 1998 the court adjourned five hearings on account of the Association's absence, and one on account of the court's relocation to another building. 10. On 8 June 1998 the District Court allowed the applicant's claims and allocated him apartment no. 43, having found that the re-distribution of the apartment between the investors was flawed and that the applicant's family were entitled to priority allocation of housing. The Association lodged an appeal in cassation. 11. On 14 July 1998 the Vinnytsya Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Вінницький обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment, having found that the analysis of facts and law by the District Court was insufficient and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. 12. On 1 October 1998 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims, having found that the re-distribution process was not in breach of applicable law. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation. 13. On 1 December 1998 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. In particular, it found that the District Court's analysis was insufficient. 14. Between January and April 1999 the District Court held two hearings, one of them being adjourned on account of the parties' failure to appear. 15. On 22 April 1999 the District Court found that, since the applicant was entitled to priority housing, the Association should have redistributed another apartment to the investors. The court further obliged the Association to provide the applicant with an apartment of equal value at its own expense. This judgment was not appealed against and became final in May 1999. 16. On an unspecified date the Staromisky District Bailiffs' Service initiated the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 22 April 1999 and requested the District Court to provide instructions as to the execution of the judgment, given that the Association had transferred all its assets to the Company. 17. On 30 September 1999 the District Court found the Company to be the Association's successor in respect of the judgment of 22 April 1999 and ordered it to pay the applicant 31,080 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[2] instead of providing an apartment. This decision was not appealed against and became final in October 1999. 18. On 13 January 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the ruling of 30 September 1999 following a “protest” instituted by the court's President and ordered the District Court to re-consider the request of the Bailiffs' Service. In particular, the Presidium noted that the District Court had not requested any liquidation documents and had insufficiently explored whether the Association had been succeeded by the Company. Furthermore, in breach of applicable law, the court had neither heard nor summoned the parties concerned. 19. On 14 April 2000 the District Court found that the Association had not been formally liquidated and ordered it to purchase an apartment for the applicant. This decision became final in April 2000. 20. On 30 May 2000 the applicant petitioned the District Court to re-open the proceedings in connection with a “newly disclosed circumstance” (перегляд за нововиявленими обставинами), namely that the Association had, in fact, ceased to exist. 21. On 7 July 2000 the District Court allowed the applicant's petition. It annulled the judgment of 22 April 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, having summoned the Company as the defendant in the Association's stead. 22. On 29 September 2000 the District Court allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the Company to provide him with an apartment. The Company appealed in cassation. 23. On 21 November 2000 the Regional Court, by a final decision, upheld the judgment of 29 September 2000. 24. On 29 March 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 29 September 2000, following a “protest” lodged by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 25. Between May 2001 and March 2002 the District Court adjourned seven hearings, one of the adjournments being attributable to the applicant (amendment of claims). 26. On 15 March 2002 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims. It obliged the Association and the Company jointly to provide an apartment to the applicant. The Company appealed. 27. On 4 June 2002 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, having found that the District Court had still failed to explore a number of issues, including that of succession between the Association and the Company. 28. On 19 December 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims, having found that the defendants had no apartments for distribution and the applicable law did not provide for monetary compensation in this event. Moreover, the applicant no longer qualified for priority treatment either by the Association or the Company, since he no longer worked for them and his living conditions were satisfactory. The applicant appealed. 29. On 1 April 2003 the Regional Court upheld this judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation. 30. On 23 May 2003 the District Court returned the applicant's appeal in cassation as “not lodged” on account of his failure to abide by the court's order to pay a court fee. The applicant appealed, seeking to be relieved of the obligation to pay the fee. 31. On 7 July 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 23 May 2003. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.

8. The first applicant, Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag, a taxi company, was dissolved due to a lack of assets on 2 December 1997. The second applicant, Nino Vulic, was the director of the first applicant. At the time when the tax liability in dispute in the present case arose, he owned 50% of its shares. Later, he acquired all the shares of the company. 9. In the autumn of 1994, as part of a large-scale investigation into taxicab operators, the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm carried out a tax audit concerning the first applicant's taxi business. Having previously submitted its tax returns for the assessment year 1994, the first applicant was asked to submit supplementary information on several occasions, starting on 29 November 1994. Having discovered in the course of the audit certain irregularities in the tax returns, the Tax Authority informed the first applicant on 20 February 1995 that it intended to revise upwards the figure given in the tax returns for the turnover of the taxi business and impose additional taxes and tax surcharges on the company. The first applicant was invited to submit further comments, which it did. 10. Having regard to the findings of the audit and the first applicant's observations, the Tax Authority – by a decision of 10 August 1995 – revised upwards the turnover of the company's business by more than 400,000 Swedish kronor (SEK). After deductions for undeclared salary and petrol costs, the Tax Authority's assessments resulted in an increase in the deficit of the first applicant's business. However, by decisions of 11 and 15 August 1995, the taxation bases for calculating value-added tax (mervärdesskatt) and employer's contributions (arbetsgivaravgifter) were raised upwards in correspondence with the turnover and, as a consequence, the first applicant's liability to value-added tax and employer's contributions were increased by SEK 47,956 and 125,650, respectively. Moreover, as the information supplied by the first applicant in its tax returns was found to be incorrect and its liability to value-added tax and employer's contributions had been increased under a discretionary assessment procedure, the Tax Authority ordered it to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg, avgiftstillägg) amounting to 20% of the increased tax liability. The additional taxes levied on the first applicant, including interest and surcharges, totalled SEK 232,069, of which SEK 34,710 were surcharges. It appears that the whole of the amount was payable in October 1995. 11. On 11 August 1995 the Tax Authority presented a report, according to which it intended to raise upwards the second applicant's taxable income and impose a tax surcharge, as a consequence of the assessments concerning the first applicant. The second applicant was invited to submit comments, which he did. 12. By a decision of 6 October 1995 the Tax Authority increased the second applicant's liability to income tax by SEK 146,602. Like the first applicant, and for the same reasons, he was ordered to pay tax surcharges. The additional tax levied on the second applicant, including interest and surcharges, totalled SEK 226,776, of which SEK 57,757 were surcharges. The whole of the amount was payable on 12 February 1996. 13. Claiming that the information relied upon by the Tax Authority to calculate the turnover of the first applicant's business was inaccurate, both applicants challenged the Tax Authority's decisions, the first applicant on 4 September 1995 in a request for the Authority's reconsideration and the second applicant on 18 December 1995 in an appeal against the relevant decision. The applicants also requested that the execution of the amounts assessed be stayed. The requests were prompted by the fact that neither an appeal to a court nor a request for reconsideration by the Tax Authority had in itself any suspensive effect on the obligation to pay the taxes and surcharges due as a result of the impugned decisions. 14. By decisions of 8 September 1995 and 17 February 1996 the Tax Authority rejected the applicants' requests for stays of execution, stating that the prerequisites laid down in section 49 of the Tax Collection Act (Uppbördslagen, 1953:272) had not been fulfilled. 15. By judgments of 22 February and 8 March 1996, following appeals by the applicants, the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm quashed the Tax Authority's decisions and referred the cases back to the Authority. Having found that the formal prerequisites for granting stays of execution under section 49, subsection 1 (3) of the Tax Collection Act had been fulfilled, the court went on to state: “However, the granting of a stay of execution under this particular provision is conditional on security being provided, if, for some reason, it can be assumed that the amount in respect of which a stay of execution has been sought will not be duly paid. As the Tax Authority did not rule on the compliance with that condition, the County Administrative Court finds that the decision[s] should be quashed and the case[s] referred back to the Tax Authority, which must examine the question whether security is required.” 16. On 7 and 30 May 1996, respectively, the Tax Authority again rejected the applicants' requests for stays of execution. The Tax Authority found that the applicants' ability to pay was open to doubt, that stays of execution could not therefore be granted unless security was provided and that, although given the opportunity to do so, the applicants had failed to provide security. Accordingly, their requests could not be granted. 17. The applicants appealed against those decisions to the County Administrative Court, claiming that they should be exempted from the obligation to provide security and granted stays of execution. Both claims rested on the contention that it would be unreasonable and amount to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for enforcement proceedings to be instituted against the applicants without their cases having first been determined "in due course". 18. By judgments of 12 September 1996, subscribing to the reasons given by the Tax Authority, the County Administrative Court upheld the impugned decisions. 19. The applicants, who did not furnish security, lodged a notice of appeal. On 30 October 1996 the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm refused them leave to appeal against the County Administrative Court's judgments. They did not appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten). 20. Meanwhile, each of the debts being outstanding and no stays of execution having been granted, the applicants were registered as being in arrears with the taxes and tax surcharges imposed as a result of the Tax Authority's decisions. Enforcement proceedings were therefore instituted against both applicants. 21. On 20 December 1996 the Enforcement Office (kronofogde-myndigheten) of the County of Stockholm, representing the State, filed a petition with the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm, requesting that the first applicant be declared bankrupt. According to a statement submitted by the Office, as of 16 December 1996 the first applicant's tax liability relating to the assessment year 1994 amounted to SEK 271,733, including penalties for late payment (dröjsmålsavgifter) that had accrued since the final date on which payment could have been made. That amount included SEK 33,041, plus 6% in penalties for late payment, in tax surcharges. The first applicant also had a smaller tax liability relating to the assessment year 1996. The Office noted that an investigation had revealed that the first applicant owned no property that could be seized in order to cover the debts in question. 22. The District Court held a hearing in the case on 3 February 1997. Although duly summoned, however, no representative of the first applicant appeared before the court. Instead, written observations previously submitted on its behalf were read out. According to the minutes of the hearing, the first applicant alleged in those observations that Article 6 of the Convention had been breached in that it had been denied a fair hearing. 23. By a decision of 10 February 1997 the District Court declared the first applicant bankrupt. In so doing it noted that the alleged breach of Article 6 of the Convention did not affect the State's standing to petition for bankruptcy, that the first applicant was under an obligation to pay the debts and that it had to be considered insolvent as it had been found to have no distrainable assets. 24. The first applicant appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt), claiming, inter alia, that the District Court's decision amounted to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that the enforcement proceedings had been allowed to continue irrespective of the fact that the Tax Authority's decisions regarding its liability to taxes and tax surcharges had not yet been reviewed by a court. 25. The first applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 21 February 1997. Leave to appeal against the appellate court's decision was refused by the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) on 6 May 1997. 26. On 2 December 1997 the bankruptcy proceedings were terminated owing to a lack of assets. 27. On 23 and 25 April 1996 the Enforcement Office seized the second applicant's savings in two banks, amounting to a total of SEK 18,132, in partial defrayment of his tax liability. 28. The second applicant appealed to the District Court, requesting that the seizure be quashed. The appeal was dismissed by the court on 28 June 1996. He made no further appeals, considering that they would have no prospects of success. 29. Following the Enforcement Office's decision of 22 November 1996 to seize part of the second applicant's monthly income, some minor amounts were recovered. By a decision of 5 December 1997 this seizure was discontinued. As of 21 August 2001 the second applicant's tax liability relating to the assessment year 1994 amounted to SEK 346,161, including penalties for late payment. Of the original debt of SEK 226,776, SEK 201,910 remained unpaid. In accordance with section 3 of the Statute of Limitations for Tax Claims (Lagen om preskription av skattefordringar m.m., 1982:188), the whole debt became statute-barred on 31 December 2001, at the end of the fifth year following the day it became due. 30. On 30 August 1995 the Tax Authority reported the second applicant to the Public Prosecution Office (åklagarmyndigheten) in Stockholm for suspected tax crimes based on the information obtained during the tax audit and the statements made in the applicants' tax returns. On 23 May 1997 the second applicant was indicted for a bookkeeping offence. A hearing was held by the District Court on 22 January 2001. During the course of the hearing, the public prosecutor withdrew the charges and the District Court consequently struck the case out of its list. 31. As mentioned above, on 4 September 1995, the first applicant requested the Tax Authority to reconsider its decisions on taxes and tax surcharges. On 9 October 1995 the Authority decided not to change its decision of 10 August 1995 concerning the assessment of the turnover of the company's business. Subsequently, the first applicant sent comments and questions to the Tax Authority, which replied to the questions on 17 February 1996. On 22 February 1996 the first applicant lodged formal notices of appeal against the Tax Authority's decisions. It also submitted comments and questions to the Tax Authority, which, by a letter of 19 August 1996, stated that it stood by its decisions. The first applicant presented further observations on 5 September 1996. By decisions of 11 and 12 June 1997 the Tax Authority refused to change the impugned decisions. Consequently, the matters were automatically referred to the County Administrative Court for determination. 32. By a decision of 17 July 2000 the County Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant's appeals. The Court considered that, as it had been dissolved on 2 December 1997, the company lacked legal capacity (rättskapacitet) to act as a party. Accordingly, the appeals could not be examined. 33. On 9 October 2001 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the County Administrative Court's decision. On 12 November 2001 the first applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. By a decision of 23 April 2002 the latter court granted leave to appeal. Thus, the matter is presently pending before the Supreme Administrative Court. 34. At the same time as his appeal of 18 December 1995, the second applicant submitted comments and questions to the Tax Authority, which replied on 17 February 1996. A few days later he sent a letter to the Authority. By a letter of 19 August 1996 the Authority stated that it stood by its previous decision. The second applicant presented further comments on 5 September 1996. On 12 June 1997 the Tax Authority refused to change the impugned decision. Consequently, the matter was automatically referred to the County Administrative Court for determination. 35. By a judgment of 29 March 2000 the County Administrative Court upheld the Tax Authority's decision of 6 October 1995. It considered that the information on which the impugned decisions were based was reliable and showed that the applicant's income and the tax in question could not be assessed in accordance with the statements made in his tax returns. Thus, the Tax Authority had had good reason to make discretionary tax assessments based on the information obtained during the audit. Furthermore, the amount levied on the applicant could not be considered too high. The County Administrative Court also considered that there had been sufficient reasons to impose the tax surcharge in question and that no legal basis for remitting it had been shown. 36. On 15 December 2000 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the County Administrative Court's judgment. During the course of the proceedings before the appellate court the second applicant was on one occasion granted a four-week extension of a time-limit for the submission of observations. On 12 January 2001 he appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. Following another extension of a similar time-limit, he completed his appeal on 20 April 2001. By a decision of 3 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court refused him leave to appeal.

5. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Odessa. 6. In the period between 10 September and 13 October 1999 the applicant had in-patient treatment in the Odessa Region Psychiatric Hospital (“the hospital”) which is a State-run institution. In 2000 she was registered with the Odessa Region Psychoneurological Dispensary (“the psychoneurological dispensary”) as a person with potential mental problems. 7. On 24 September 2003 the applicant was assessed by a doctor at the psychoneurological dispensary and referred to the hospital for in-patient treatment for a serious mental disorder. However, the applicant ignored the referral and stayed at home with her mother. A report of the applicant’s assessment was provided to the hospital. 8. In the next few days the applicant’s condition worsened and her behaviour became aggressive towards her mother and neighbours. The mother and the housing maintenance authority therefore complained to the hospital about the applicant’s conduct. 9. In the morning of 28 September 2003 the applicant was taken to the hospital by ambulance and was assessed by a psychiatrist of the hospital, who concluded that she needed to be hospitalised for a serious mental disorder. The applicant was therefore kept in the hospital. 10. On 29 September 2003 a panel of three different psychiatrists of the hospital assessed the applicant once again and issued a report stating that she was a danger to society due to her serious mental disorder, which required in-patient psychiatric treatment. The psychiatrists specified in the report that the applicant’s manner of communication with her mother and neighbours was aggressive; she threatened them, threw glass jars, bottles and vases off the balcony, which was on the fifth floor, played loud music at night and damaged property in the apartment. 11. The hospital therefore lodged an application with a local court, seeking authorisation for compulsory admission to hospital in accordance with sections 14 and 16 of the Psychiatric Assistance Act. 12. On 30 September 2003 a judge at the local court conducted an on‑site hearing of the applicant’s case in the administration wing of the hospital. The hearing was held in the presence of a prosecutor and one of the doctors who had assessed the applicant earlier. Following the hearing the court allowed the application and held as follows: “... having examined the case file and heard a representative of [the hospital] and a prosecutor, the court considers that the application in question should be allowed. It appears from the case file that the patient was taken from home to [the hospital] by the ambulance after showing signs of mental illness which suggested that she was a danger to society. A panel of psychiatrists [of the hospital] has concluded that the patient should have in-patient treatment. Relying on the Psychiatric Assistance Act and Article 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has decided that [M.] should be compulsorily hospitalised to undergo medical treatment. The decision shall not be subject to appeal. ...” 13. On 19 December 2003 the compulsory treatment was completed and the applicant was discharged from the hospital. 14. According to the applicant, the sanitary and hygienic conditions in which she was kept in the hospital were unsatisfactory. 15. On 15 July 2004 the applicant was assessed by a doctor at the psychoneurological dispensary and referred to the hospital for in-patient treatment for a serious mental disorder. The applicant refused the proposed treatment and stayed at home. A report of the assessment of the applicant was sent to the hospital. 16. After the assessment, the applicant’s condition worsened in a similar way as before the second hospitalisation and the neighbours and the housing maintenance authority complained to the hospital about her behaviour. 17. In the morning of 19 July 2004 the applicant was taken to the hospital by ambulance and assessed by a psychiatrist there, who concluded that she was suffering from a mental disorder and needed to be hospitalised. The applicant was therefore kept in the hospital. 18. On 20 July 2004 a panel of three psychiatrists of the hospital, including the psychiatrist who had assessed the applicant the previous day, issued a report stating that the applicant was a danger to society due to her serious mental disorder and that she needed in-patient treatment. The hospital therefore applied to the court for an order for compulsory admission. 19. On 21 July 2004 the local court allowed the application, following an on-site hearing held in the administration wing of the hospital. The hearing was attended by the prosecutor and one of the psychiatrists who had previously assessed the applicant. The court held as follows: “... having examined the case file and heard a representative of [the hospital] and a prosecutor, the court considers that the application in question should be allowed. It appears from the case file that on 19 July 2004 the patient was taken from home to [the hospital] by ambulance after showing signs of a serious mental disorder. For this reason a panel of psychiatrists found that the applicant was a danger to society and should be compulsorily admitted to [the hospital] for in-patient treatment. The representative of [the hospital] has submitted that the patient should be admitted to the hospital and treated for a serious mental disorder. Having regard to all the circumstances, the court comes to the conclusion that the patient’s compulsory hospitalisation is required. Relying on the Psychiatric Assistance Act and Article 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has decided that [M.] should be compulsorily hospitalised to undergo medical treatment. The decision shall not be subject to appeal. ...” 20. On 8 September 2004 the applicant was discharged from the hospital on completion of the treatment. 21. On 13 February 2006 the applicant was assessed by a doctor at the psychoneurological dispensary, who concluded that the applicant’s mental disorder had recurred. 22. On 17 February 2006 the applicant made a written application for admission to the hospital for treatment. The application was signed only by the applicant. According to the applicant, she had been compelled to do so under the threat of never being discharged from the hospital. She had been in poor health, mentally and physically, that day. 23. Subsequently, the application was marked and signed by a member of hospital staff, designating the department of the hospital to which the applicant was to be assigned. 24. According to the applicant, the regime under which she was kept in the hospital was strict, as she had to stay in the hospital for the whole day; her movements within the premises of the hospital were restricted; and her personal belongings were limited in number and inventoried. 25. On 19 April 2006 the applicant was discharged from the hospital. 26. On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Suvorovskyy District Court of Odessa against Odessa Regional Oncological Hospital, seeking reinstatement in the position of doctor and payment of salary arrears. 27. On 9 February 2005 the court rejected her claim as unsubstantiated. On 15 June 2005 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. 28. On the expiration of the time-limit the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court against the judgment of 9 February 2005. The applicant did not request the Supreme Court to extend the time‑limit. 29. On 28 October 2005 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible as submitted out of time.

6. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Birmingham. The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are as follows. 7. In July 1998 the applicant and his wife became joint tenants of a three-bedroom family house owned by Birmingham City Council (“the local authority”). They were also secure tenants under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985 (see paragraph 20 below). 8. The marriage broke down early in 2001 and the applicant’s wife moved out of the house with the two children. On 5 April 2001, following a contested hearing at which the applicant was not represented, the court made a three-month non-molestation order and an ouster order requiring the applicant to leave the house, which he did. Mrs McCann and the children moved back into the house, but moved out again when on 14 April the applicant turned up at the house, used a crowbar to force entry and allegedly assaulted Mrs McCann and her friend. Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant following this incident, but resulted in an acquittal when no evidence was put forward. 9. On 18 April 2001 Mrs McCann submitted to the local authority an application to be rehoused on grounds of domestic violence. On 8 August 2001 she returned the keys to the local authority with a note saying that she was giving up the tenancy. She and the children moved into another council house which had been allocated to them in accordance with the local authority’s domestic violence policy. The local authority visited the house and found that most of the fixtures had been removed so that in excess of 15,000 pounds sterling would be required to make it habitable. Thereafter, as far as the local authority was concerned, the property was uninhabited. 10. In November 2001 the applicant returned to the house and did a considerable amount of work to renovate it. His relationship with Mrs McCann improved and she supported his application for an exchange of accommodation with another local-authority tenant, as the three-bedroom house was too big for him but he still required a home in the area so that his children could visit. 11. That application, dated 4 January 2002, was completed at the local-authority housing office. On the same day, a housing officer, having realised that the property was not in fact empty, and having taken legal advice, visited Mrs McCann and asked her to close the tenancy by signing a notice to quit. The County Court judge who heard the local authority’s claim for possession found as a fact that Mrs McCann was not advised and had no understanding that the notice to quit would have the effect of extinguishing the applicant’s right to live in the house or exchange it for another local‑authority property (see paragraph 19 below). Approximately one week later Mrs McCann wrote to the local authority seeking to withdraw the notice to quit, but it nonetheless remained effective. 12. The applicant was informed that the tenancy had come to an end, and he was given notice to vacate. On 11 June 2002 the local authority’s Allocations Officer Review Panel decided, inter alia, that in accordance with the domestic violence policy, the applicant would not be granted the right to accede to the former tenancy of the house and that, in any event, the applicant, who had no dependants living with him, would not qualify for a dwelling originally allocated to a qualifying family which had been rehoused. 13. On 11 October 2002 the local authority brought possession proceedings against the applicant in the County Court, which he defended on the basis that it was contrary to his right to respect for his home under Article 8 of the Convention to be evicted on the basis of the notice to quit. 14. In his judgment of 15 April 2003, the County Court judge held that under the common law and Housing Act (see paragraphs 19-20 below), the applicant had no defence to the authority’s claim for possession. Under Article 8 of the Convention, however, he cited previous case-law which held that in such cases, generally, the interest of the local authority as landlord and of other persons in need of social housing had been taken into account by the applicable common law and legislation, and that, provided that the local authority had acted lawfully, it was not open to a court to put aside a claim for possession, except in exceptional circumstances where it appeared that the former tenant’s Article 8 rights had not been properly considered. He noted the circumstances in which Mrs McCann had signed the notice to quit and observed that, if she had not been induced to sign it, the local authority would have had to apply for a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 (see paragraph 20 below). It would then have been open to the applicant to seek to persuade the court that it would not be reasonable to grant the order; he and Mrs McCann could have given evidence regarding the alleged domestic violence; and he could in addition have raised such issues as his own housing needs and the need to provide accommodation for the children when they visited. In the circumstances, the judge held that the local authority had not acted as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention and he dismissed the claim for possession. 15. The authority’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was adjourned pending the outcome of proceedings before the House of Lords in London Borough of Harrow v. Qazi [2003] UKHL 43 (see paragraphs 22-25 below). On 9 December 2003 Lord Justice Mummery gave the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the present case, holding as follows: “ ... Article 8 is not available as a defence to the possession proceedings, even though the premises in question were the ‘home’ of the occupant for the purposes of the Article. The Council acted lawfully and within its powers in obtaining the notice to quit, which had the effect of terminating the secure tenancy. There was no dispute but that the tenancy had been brought to an end by [the applicant’s wife’s] notice to quit. Under ordinary domestic law the Council had an unqualified right to immediate possession on proof that the tenancy of the premises had been brought to an end. The statutory procedure in section 82 of the 1985 Act, which is available to a local‑authority landlord for terminating a secure tenancy, does not apply to a case where the secure tenancy has been terminated by the tenant’s notice to quit. That notice to quit was effective, even though the notice was signed without appreciating the consequences for the occupier of the premises. This is not a ‘wholly exceptional’ case where, for example, something has happened since the service of the notice to quit, which has fundamentally altered the rights and wrongs of the proposed eviction and the Council might be required to justify its claim to override the Article 8 right (see Qazi at paragraph 79 [paragraph 24 below]).” 16. The applicant applied for judicial review of the local authority’s decision of 4 January 2002 to procure a notice to quit from his wife, and of its decision of 11 June 2002 to issue possession proceedings. The application was refused on 23 September 2004. The judge found, inter alia, that the local authority had acted within its powers in seeking, through the wife’s notice to quit, to formalise the situation as regards the tenancy and that its decision to apply its domestic violence policy where domestic violence had been established by the existence of a non-molestation injunction and ouster clause was neither unlawful nor outside the range of decisions properly open to the local authority in all the circumstances. He concluded: “I agree ... that the Court of Appeal effectively decided the relevant issues between Mr McCann and the Council and that this application is an attempt to resurrect them a second time. The Council is entitled to possession and this application for judicial review fails. ... As for the generality, whether or not a decision can be challenged as a matter of law does not mean that it is not appropriate for a public authority to be as open as it can be. There is no reason why the Council’s policy should not be absolutely explicit, spelling out that the consequence of an application for rehousing will be a requirement to give notice to quit of the existing tenancy which will affect the rights of the remaining tenant or occupier and thereafter providing notice to that person. In that way, clarity will prevail and some of the concerns that have been expressed in this case avoided.” 17. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused on 9 December 2004. 18. The applicant was evicted from the house on 22 March 2005.

22. The applicants are Croatian nationals. 23. Mr Ivo Kovačić was born in 1922 and lived in Zagreb. He died on 17 July 2004, in the course of the proceedings. His relatives have elected to pursue the application before the Court (see paragraph 3 above). 24. Mr Marjan Mrkonjić was born in 1941 and lives in Zurich (see paragraph 2 above). 25. Mrs Dolores Golubović was born in 1922 and lived in Karlovac. She died on 15 October 2004. Her nephew has elected to pursue her application before the Court (see paragraph 3 above). 26. Before the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”), the applicants or their relatives all deposited hard foreign currencies in savings accounts with the office of a Slovenian bank – the Ljubljana Bank (in Slovenian: Ljubljanska banka) – in Zagreb (Croatia). Some of them also held term accounts which matured in the late 1980s or early 1990s. At the time the Ljubljana Bank was one of the major commercial banks of the SFRY with offices in other Republics. 27. The bank now called the Ljubljana Bank was founded in 1955 and subsequently underwent several changes of status and name. 28. In 1969 its legal predecessor opened an office in Zagreb in the then Socialist Republic of Croatia. It was re-registered in 1974 and in 1977. 29. From 1978 until 1 January 1990 the Ljubljana Bank Head Office (Ljubljanska banka – združena banka), a company existing under the laws of the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia, operated as an “associated bank”. It was made up of Ljubljana Bank Basic Banks and carried on business in accordance with the principles of the socialist self-management system then in operation. 30. Over much the same period, from 1977 until 1990, the Ljubljana Bank's Zagreb office operated as a “basic bank”, being neither a branch nor a subsidiary of the Ljubljana Bank Head Office. 31. The Ljubljana Bank - Basic Bank Zagreb (in Croatian: Ljubljanska banka - Osnovna Banka Zagreb) had separate legal personality under the law of the then Socialist Republic of Croatia and was financially and economically independent. It was, however, integrated into the organisational structure of the Ljubljana Bank. 32. On 19 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank Head Office was re-registered as a joint stock company (delniška družba, “d.d.”) with effect from 1 January 1990. 33. On 29 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb was re-registered as the Zagreb Main Branch (Glavna filijala Zagreb) with effect from 1 January 1990. (b) The system of redepositing foreign-currency savings 34. Individuals were allowed to open foreign-currency savings accounts in the SFRY from 1965 onwards. Annual interest on savings accounts was comparatively high, reaching levels of 10% and more. From 25 December 1969 until the dates on which each successor State declared its independence, all foreign-currency deposits were covered by the Federation's (“the SFRY's”) statutory guarantee (see section 76 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Official Gazette of the SFRY, no. 10/89, paragraph 166 below). 35. In 1977 a system by which commercial banks redeposited foreign-currency savings with the National Bank of Yugoslavia (“the NBY”) in Belgrade was introduced by the Foreign Exchange Operations and International Credit Relations Act (Official Gazette of the SFRY, no. 15/77). Pursuant to section 51(2) of that Act, the NBY was under an obligation to accept foreign-currency savings deposited with authorised banks and to grant interest-free loans in Yugoslav dinars (YUD) to the bank depositing the foreign currency. The dinar loans were credited to local companies in the Republic where the banks were located. Although the SFRY banks were not required by law to transfer the foreign-currency deposits to the NBY, it is generally agreed that, in practice, they had no other option. This system freed commercial banks from the risk of loss due to exchange rate differences. 36. From 1978 to 1988 further legislation regulating the redeposit transactions was passed. One of the decisions adopted in 1978 introduced the so-called “pro-forma” or “accounting” method of redepositing foreign exchange in order to save considerable sums that would otherwise have gone towards fees for neutral transactions. In the following years, only approximately 14% of foreign-currency deposits were actually transferred by the commercial banks to the NBY. 37. From 1985 onwards redepositing banks were required to pay interest on the previously interest-free loans in YUD granted in exchange for the foreign currency redeposited with the NBY. 38. On 15 October 1988 the system of redeposits was brought to an end by amendments to the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (Official Gazette of the SFRY no. 59/88, see paragraph 165 below). The amended section 14(4) provided that “[t]he conditions and procedure applicable to the obligations arising under the guarantee [should] be regulated by a separate federal law”. As no such law was enacted, the remedies employed by the SFRY were based on ad hoc decrees. Only banks, not individual depositors, were entitled to demand payment of foreign-currency deposits. A bank had to be insolvent or bankrupt before any payment could be made under the guarantee. 39. In 1991 the foreign-currency claims of commercial banks against the NBY amounted to approximately 12,000,000,000 US dollars (USD) and remained frozen. (c) The monetary crisis and the Marković reforms 40. The problems resulting from the foreign and domestic debt of the SFRY caused a monetary crisis in the 1980s, with the SFRY economy suffering hyperinflation. The banking and monetary systems were on the verge of collapse and the SFRY resorted to emergency measures. Among other developments, legislation imposing restrictions on the repayment of foreign-currency deposits to individuals was introduced (see section 71 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, paragraph 165 below). 41. 1989 was a year of reforms for the SFRY in which many legislative, institutional and structural adjustments were made to prepare the transition from the socialist planned economy into a market-oriented one (the so-called Marković reforms, named after the then Prime Minister Mr Ante Marković). According to the respondent Government, these reforms, which also included rehabilitation measures, should have been implemented in full within two years but the dissolution of the SFRY prevented this. 42. The reform of the banking system under the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (Official Gazette of the SFRY no. 10/89) provided for the conversion of associated and basic banks into joint stock companies. 43. In 1988, 1989 and 1990 the SFRY assumed liability for the foreign-currency related losses and payment of the foreign-currency deposits with the NBY by converting the foreign exchange-rate differences into public debt. Since in 1991 the servicing of public debt was not regulated, the NBY passed a resolution granting banks special liquidity loans in order to enable withdrawals of foreign-currency deposits. In addition, the amount of foreign currency that could be withdrawn was further restricted. 44. This general situation lasted until June 1991, when the process of disintegration of the SFRY started. The whole process took place over several months as four of the six Republics proclaimed their independence. (d) The Ljubljana Bank and the Zagreb Main Branch (i) Background 45. In 1988 the Ljubljana Bank's foreign-currency accounts were frozen. 46. On 19 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank joint stock company was established in Ljubljana, in the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The change was entered in the Register of Companies the same day and became effective on 1 January 1990. 47. Article 60 of the Ljubljana Bank's memorandum and articles of association of 19 December 1989 provided that the Ljubljana Bank would take over the rights, assets and obligations of the Ljubljana Bank Head Office and, among others, the Basic Bank of Zagreb as a legal successor on the day of its formation or registration in the Register of Companies. 48. On 29 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb was reregistered in the Zagreb Commercial Court (Trgovački sud) as the Zagreb Main Branch (Glavna filijala Zagreb) with effect from 1 January 1990. (ii) Matters in dispute concerning the legal position and banking liabilities of the Zagreb office of the Ljubljana Bank at the material time (α) Events as related by the respondent Government 49. The respondent Government maintained that the dissolution of the SFRY had prevented the full conversion of the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb into the Zagreb Main Branch. Thus, the status, operations, assets and liability for deposits of the Zagreb Main Branch had become a State succession issue. 50. During the two-year interim period of the Marković reforms, the so-called “main branches” which had operated previously as basic banks had had a sui generis status fundamentally different from that of a “branch” as known to Western European legal systems. In particular, such main branches could be rehabilitated under section 25 of the Rehabilitation, Liquidation and Solvency of Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (see paragraph 168 below). In 1990 the rehabilitation of the Zagreb Main Branch was initiated but the dissolution of the SFRY prevented its completion. (β) Events as related by the intervening Government 51. As far as the status of the Zagreb office was concerned, the intervening Government stated that at the material time the Zagreb Main Branch had existed as an integral part of the Ljubljana Bank, that there had been an institutional relationship of dependency, and that the Ljubljana Bank was liable with all its assets and with no restrictions for the Zagreb Main Branch's obligations. This state of affairs arose from the decision on the organisational structure of the Ljubljana Bank joint stock company adopted by its assembly on 19 December 1989, as confirmed by the extract from the Register of Companies of the Ljubljana Basic Court of 29 December 1989. Moreover, even before that decision, when the Zagreb office had functioned as a “basic bank” with its own legal status, it had not enjoyed financial independence in foreign-currency operations. 52. On 25 June 1991 the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia enacted the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia and the Constitutional Law relating to the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia (Official Gazette of the RS no. 1/91). (a) The Constitutional Law relating to the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia 53. By virtue of section 19(3) of the Constitutional Law, the Republic of Slovenia became guarantor of all foreign-currency savings deposited with banks on Slovenian territory at that date (see paragraph 170 below). (b) Developments after independence 54. In October 1991 a new Slovenian currency was introduced, the Slovenian tolar (SIT). 55. In October 1991 a Bank Rehabilitation Agency was established with the principal task of conducting a rehabilitation programme. 56. On 4 February 1993 the constitutional-law guarantee was implemented by the Discharge of Liability for Unpaid Foreign-Currency Deposits Act (Official Gazette of the RS no. 7/93, see paragraph 172 below). Under section 2 of that Act, liabilities arising out of foreign-currency deposits became part of the Slovenian public debt. Further implementing legislation was passed in 1995. 57. Thus, foreign currency deposited with banks on Slovenian territory became part of the public debt in the form of bonds totalling approximately 1,500,000,000 German marks (DEM) and the account holders were able to make withdrawals, regardless of the location of the head office of their bank or of their nationality. 58. On 11 March 1993 the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act (Official Gazette of the RS no. 10/93, see paragraph 173 below) came into force. Under that Act, a number of claims and obligations of the Republic of Slovenia and its official bodies vis-à-vis the SFRY and its subordinate bodies, including the NBY, were assigned to the Succession Fund. 59. On 28 June 1994 the Convention and Protocol No. 1 came into force in respect of Slovenia. (c) The 1994 amendments to the 1991 Constitutional Law (i) Background 60. According to the Slovenian Government, in 1991 the Ljubljana Bank represented 42.4% of the Slovenian banking market. However, both before and after the dissolution of the SFRY the Ljubljana Bank accumulated substantial negative capital. For this reason, the Government decided that rehabilitation measures were urgently required to prevent the collapse of the Slovenian financial system and such measures were taken in 1993. In that year, the Republic of Slovenia became the Ljubljana Bank's sole shareholder. 61. The Ljubljana Bank's financial position was further jeopardised by two kinds of succession risks in the absence of any agreement between the Successor States: firstly, a claim by foreign creditors for USD 4,200,000,000 under an agreement known as the New Finance Agreement (NFA); and, secondly, the continued exposure to the SFRY's liability for redeposited foreign exchange outside Slovenian territory. 62. The authorities decided in 1994, as part of the rehabilitation measures, to amend the 1991 Constitutional Law in order to protect the public interest, as is reflected in the preamble to the 1994 Act (see paragraph 171 below). (ii) The legislation 63. On 27 July 1994 the National Assembly amended the 1991 Constitutional Law (Official Gazette of the RS no. 45/94, see paragraph 171 below) so as to restructure the Ljubljana Bank by creating a new and separate legal entity (section 22(č)), the New Ljubljana Bank. It was formed as a joint stock company which took over all of the former bank's assets and liabilities on Slovenian territory. The former bank, the Ljubljana Bank, retained its rights against and obligations towards the SFRY (section 22(b)) and its former constituent republics: in particular, full obligations in respect of the foreign-currency ordinary and deposit accounts that were not guaranteed under section 19 of the 1991 Constitutional Law, that is to say, those contracted outside Slovenian territory (see paragraph 170 below). 64. That law also laid down that the Ljubljana Bank would continue to deal with branches and subsidiaries whose head offices were situated in other republics of the territory of the SFRY and retain the rights to the corresponding portion of the debt owed by the NBY in respect of the foreign-currency savings accounts. 65. The Bank Rehabilitation Agency remained the owner of the Ljubljana Bank. (d) The decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court 66. On 11 April 1996 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed a constitutional initiative (ustavna pobuda) brought by a Croatian savings-account holder, Mr Vukasinović, challenging the constitutionality of the 1994 Constitutional Law, holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear it (see paragraphs 176 and 177 below). (e) Developments subsequent to the decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court 67. On 5 July 1997 an amendment to the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act (Official Gazette of the RS no. 40/97, see paragraph 174 below) came into force. It provided for a stay of any proceedings directly or indirectly affecting legal relations with the SFRY involving the so-called “succession-related claims”, pending resolution of the succession arrangements. The proceedings were to be reinstated ex officio once the succession arrangements had been resolved. By virtue of section 15(č) of the Act, the statutory provisions were binding on the Slovenian courts. 68. On 29 June 2001 the Agreement on Succession Issues was signed in Vienna by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro), the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia. It entered into force on 2 June 2004 (see paragraphs 186 and 187 below). 69. On 15 July 2004 the Transformation of the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia and the Establishment of the Succession Agency of the Republic of Slovenia Act was passed, which repealed the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act. 70. On 21 February 2005 the Court requested information from the respondent Government regarding implementation of the aforementioned Act (see paragraphs 14 above and 105 below). 71. The respondent Government replied that that Act was in the process of being implemented. They added that, in any event, further to the ratification of the Agreement on Succession Issues and in conformity with Article 7 of Annex G to that Agreement and with Article 8 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 186 and 169 below), the proceedings relating to succession issues had resumed in the Slovenian courts, since ratified and published international treaties took precedence over statutory provisions and, in particular, section 15(č) of the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act. They produced a number of decisions by the Slovenian courts ordering the resumption of such proceedings. 72. On 17 March 2005 the Constitutional Court ruled that the Transformation of the Succession Fund of the Republic of Slovenia and the Establishment of the Succession Agency of the Republic of Slovenia Act was unconstitutional since it did not provide for the resumption of the proceedings that had been stayed under the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund Act until the establishment of the Succession Agency. 73. On 21 March 2006 further legislation – the Republic of Slovenia Succession-Fund and the Republic of Slovenia Senior Representative for Succession Act (Official Gazette of the RS no. 29/06, see paragraph 175 below) – was passed. Section 23 of that Act provided that any stay of proceedings in the Slovenian courts relating to foreign currency deposited in a commercial bank or a branch office of a commercial bank in any successor State of the SFRY was to remain in force. Proceedings that had since been resumed were to be stayed again until a solution was found to the question of the guarantees to be provided by the SFRY or the NBY under Article 7 of Annex C of the Agreement on Succession Issues (see paragraph 186 below). 74. On 25 June 1991 the Croatian Parliament adopted the Declaration on the Sovereignty and Independence of Croatia and enacted the Constitutional Act on the Sovereignty and Independence of Croatia. On 8 October 1991 Croatia became independent. 75. In December 1991 a Croatian currency was introduced, the Croatian dinar, which was replaced in 1994 by the Croatian kuna (HRK). (a) Adoption of the SFRY's finance regulations and assumption of the guarantee for savings in Croatia 76. On 26 June 1991 the Act on the Applicability to Croatia of the SFRY's Finance Regulations was passed. By virtue of that Act, which entered into force on 8 October 1991 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia no. 71/91, see paragraph 182 below), forty-two federal statutes and five decisions of the Federal Executive Council concerning foreign-currency savings were incorporated into Croatian law. 77. On 23 December 1991 the Government issued the Decree on the Conversion of Nationals' Foreign-Currency Bank Deposits into the Croatian Public Debt (Official Gazette of the RC no. 71/91, see paragraph 183 below). Under the Decree, savings that had been deposited before 27 April 1991 with banks whose head office was situated in Croatia (“Croatian banks”) or that were transferred by Croatian nationals into Croatian banks from other banks within 30 days from the entry into force of the Decree became, subject to compliance with Articles 15 and 16 of the Decree, part of the Croatian public debt. Only Croatian citizens were entitled to the conversion of their foreign-currency savings into public debt. None of the applicants made use of this possibility. 78. The 1991 Decree provided for payment of the foreign-currency deposits in national currency in twenty half-yearly instalments starting on 30 June 1995 and bearing interest at an annual rate of 5%. Further legislation was subsequently passed on this subject. 79. According to the respondent Government's submissions before the Chamber, about two-thirds of the account-holders at the Zagreb Main Branch transferred their former savings accounts to Croatian banks, which in turn transferred their claims to Croatia. Thus, approximately DEM 450,000,000 became Croatian public debt. 140,000 Croatian depositors allegedly kept their accounts at the Zagreb Main Branch. The amount of their deposits came to approximately DEM 300,000,000 at that time. Of the remaining depositors, 96,000 had less than the equivalent of 30 euros (EUR) in foreign-currency savings standing to their credit. 80. In 1991 a Decree was adopted which prohibited the disposal or encumbering of real property on Croatian territory owned by legal entities whose head office was outside Croatia. (b) Other developments 81. On 24 February 1996 the Croatian Payment Transaction Institute froze the Zagreb Main Branch's company account. On 14 July 2000 the Croatian authorities closed the Zagreb Main Branch's giro account. 82. On 25 October 2002 the Court invited Slovenia and Croatia to submit any documents that might serve as evidence of the existence or absence of an institutional and financial relationship of dependence between the Ljubljana Bank and the Zagreb Main Branch. 83. On 5 December 2002 the Court additionally requested both Governments to provide further information on whether or not the funds on deposit with the Zagreb Main Branch had been effectively transferred to the Ljubljana Bank following the Marković reforms, and if so, the amounts transferred in Yugoslav dinars and in hard currencies. (a) The Ljubljana Bank's Annual Reports 84. The Slovenian Government submitted the Ljubljana Bank's Annual Reports for the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. They stated that no annual reports for the Zagreb Main Branch existed, only balance sheets (see paragraphs 88 and 89 below). 85. In the Ljubljana Bank's 1990 Annual Report, the assets and liabilities of the Zagreb Main Branch were included for the first and only time. 86. On page 23 of the Ljubljana Bank's 1991 Annual Report, it is stated that the balance sheets of the Ljubljana Bank and the Zagreb Main Branch could not be consolidated because of the political situation in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Ljubljana Bank had little or no control over the activities of its operations in those two countries and had little prospect of being able to transfer any funds to Slovenia in the foreseeable future. The same situation was noted in the 1992 and 1993 Annual Reports. 87. The respondent Government submitted before the Grand Chamber that following the implementation of the 1994 Constitutional Law, approximately USD 612,000,000 remained with the Ljubljana Bank. (b) The Zagreb Main Branch's accounts (i) The fact as submitted by the respondent Government 88. The respondent Government submitted the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb's balance sheet for 1989 and the Zagreb Main Branch's balance sheets for 1990, 1991, 1994 and 2001. 89. In 1991 the amount of foreign-currency redeposited by the Zagreb office with the NBY came to 13,600,000,000 Croatian dinars (USD 619,000,000), whereas foreign-currency deposits with the Zagreb office came to 10,700,000,000 Croatian dinars (USD 490,000,000), which according to the respondent Government confirmed that 100% of the foreign-currency deposits with the Zagreb office were subsequently redeposited. 90. The amount of foreign currency deposited by the Zagreb office with the NBY exceeded its liabilities towards foreign-currency depositors. This was due to the fact that some foreign-currency deposits had been paid out in Yugoslav dinars or from the current inflow of foreign currency. No transfer of foreign-currency deposit funds from Croatia to Slovenia had ever occurred. 91. Before the Grand Chamber, the respondent Government submitted that the current assets of the Zagreb Main Branch amounted to approximately EUR 525,000,000, including immovable and movable property, and far exceeded the sum of all foreign-currency deposits with the Zagreb Main Branch, estimated at EUR 172,000,000. (ii) The facts as submitted by the intervening Government 92. The intervening Government stated that further to the Marković reforms, the National Bank of Slovenia had become the regulatory authority for the Ljubljana Bank; on that date the Zagreb Main Branch's claims to foreign-currency deposits redeposited with the NBY were transferred to the National Bank of Slovenia and the funds on deposit at the National Bank of Croatia were transferred from Zagreb to new accounts in Ljubljana. 93. However, the intervening Government stressed that the correct answer to the question concerning the actual foreign-currency movements could be given only after comprehensive and independent financial examination by an expert of the Ljubljana Bank's activities. 94. Before the Grand Chamber the intervening Government stated that they were not aware of any real estate in Croatia owned by the Ljubljana Bank which would allow a large number of savers to settle their claims. 95. After the dissolution of the SFRY, the successor States were unable to negotiate a succession treaty owing in particular to the ongoing violence in the region. 96. The succession talks were first conducted within the framework of the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia. 97. As no tangible results were achieved, the succession issues were included in the tasks of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was appointed pursuant to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 98. In March 1996 Sir Arthur Watts was appointed Special Negotiator to assist the Successor States in reaching an agreement. Numerous rounds of negotiations were held. 99. On 29 June 2001 the Agreement on Succession Issues (“the Agreement”) was signed in Vienna by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia. Article 4 of the Agreement established a Standing Joint Committee to monitor the effective implementation of the agreement and to discuss issues arising in the course of its implementation (see paragraph 186 below). 100. The Agreement stipulated, inter alia, that the SFRY's foreign financial assets should be distributed to the successor States in the following proportions: Bosnia and Herzegovina 15.5%, Croatia 23%, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 38%, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 7.5% and Slovenia 16%. 101. By virtue of Article 2 § 3(a) of Annex C to the Agreement, the SFRY's financial liabilities to be distributed among the successor States included “guarantees by the SFRY or its NBY of hard currency savings deposited in a commercial bank and any of its branches in any successor State before the date on which it proclaimed independence”. 102. Article 7 of Annex C provided: “[g]uarantees by the SFRY or its NBY ... shall be negotiated without delay taking into account in particular the necessity of protecting the hard-currency savings of individuals. This negotiation shall take place under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements ['the BIS']”. 103. In 2001 and in 2002, negotiations regarding hard-currency savings did take place under the auspices of the BIS, but no solution was found. 104. All successor States have ratified the Agreement, Croatia being the last country to do so. It entered into force on 2 June 2004. 105. On 21 February 2005 the Court requested both the respondent and the intervening Governments to inform it of any developments concerning the negotiations referred to in Article 7 of Annex C. In addition, the respondent Government were invited to inform the Court whether or not the Standing Joint Committee had met or been convened (see paragraphs 14 and 70 above). 106. The respondent Government, in their reply dated 31 March 2005, stated that the first formal meeting of the Standing Joint Committee had not been convened as it should have been. They had repeatedly urged the convening of the meeting so that the issue of the frozen bank accounts could be discussed. 107. The intervening Government, in their reply dated 30 March 2005, stated that no discussion had taken place regarding the guarantee for hard-currency savings which would be relevant to the applicants' situation. 108. In their submissions to the Grand Chamber, the respondent Government stated that meetings of the Standing Joint Committee had taken place on 6 June 2005 and 18 June 2007. They had requested that the distribution of the SFRY assets be put on the agenda but Croatia had opposed that request. The next meeting was to be held in Belgrade later that year and they would be renewing their request. They had also informed the BIS of their willingness to resume the negotiations in any event. 109. In their submissions to the Grand Chamber, the intervening Government stated that the guarantees covered by Article 7 of Annex C related only to banks that were declared bankrupt, which was not the case of the Ljubljana Bank (see paragraph 38 above). Therefore, the foreign savings of the Zagreb Main Branch could not be the subject of further negotiations under the Agreement. Nevertheless, in the context of the State succession negotiations, Slovenia had included claims based on the Zagreb Main Branch savings in the NBY. On this basis, its share of the assets for distribution was 20% higher. 110. The unpaid foreign-currency savings deposited with the Zagreb Main Branch have also been the subject of frequent bilateral negotiations between Slovenia and Croatia, but no final agreement has been achieved. 111. A bilateral Agreement on the Regulation of Property Rights between Slovenia and Croatia entered into force on 23 February 2000. The first article of that agreement provides that relations between Slovenia and Croatia concerning the Zagreb Main Branch shall be governed by agreements to be concluded between the two States (see paragraph 184 below). 112. Mr Kovačić's wife held a foreign-currency savings account with the Zagreb Main Branch. Mr Kovačić himself was also a client of the Zagreb office for over 30 years. 113. On 24 October 1984 the applicant and his wife signed a three-year automatically renewable term-deposit agreement for DEM 66,771.12 earning 12.5% interest a year. The agreement stipulated, inter alia, that the SFRY would guarantee their savings. The last withdrawal from the account was made in August 1990. 114. On 10 September 1990 Mr Kovačić attempted to withdraw DEM 40,000 from the account. As the term had not yet expired, the bank manager turned down his request and suggested that he should return after 24 October 1990, the date of maturity. On 25 October 1990 the bank manager offered monthly payments of DEM 4,000. However, no payments were made. 115. Mr Kovačić and his wife made repeated attempts to obtain payment. They were informed by the bank on 17 April 1991 that it was unable to make any payments, as its relations with the NBY had not been determined and the Yugoslav foreign exchange market was not functioning. 116. According to a bank statement of 14 October 1993, the amount standing to the credit of the account was then DEM 49,794.30. 117. Following the bank's refusal, the applicant brought a civil action against “the Ljubljana Bank, Zagreb Main Branch” in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud) claiming payment of the savings with interest. On 2 December 1997 the court found, inter alia, that Mr Kovačić had inherited the foreign-currency savings account in question from his wife, who had died in the meantime. It ordered “the Ljubljana Bank, Zagreb Main Branch” to pay the applicant within fifteen days the savings plus default interest; according to the applicant, the sum came to a total of DEM 61,000. 118. The court also held that, as the bank's head office was not on Croatian territory, the provisions of the Decree on the Conversion of Nationals' Foreign-Currency Bank Deposits into Croatian Public Debt could not apply, as Mr Kovačić had not transferred his deposits to a Croatian bank. On 22 April 1998 the ruling became final and enforceable. 119. Mr Kovačić then made an application for execution of that decision to the Zagreb Municipal Court, which issued a warrant of execution in his favour on 1 October 1998. The court later stayed the execution proceedings. 120. In 1998 Mr Kovačić attempted to withdraw his funds, firstly from the Zagreb Main Branch and subsequently from the Ljubljana Bank in Ljubljana. On 6 July and on 14 September 1998 he was informed by bank officials that the bank had no funds and the account was frozen. (b) Proceedings in Slovenia 121. On 7 December 1998 Mr Kovačić made an application to the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče) seeking a declaration regarding the extent to which the Croatian judgment of 2 December 1997 was enforceable. On 21 June 1999 the District Court authorised him to enforce the Croatian judgment. However, Mr Kovačić has not sought to enforce the judgment of 2 December 1997 through the Slovenian courts. (c) Subsequent proceedings in Croatia 122. On 24 December 2001 Mr Kovačić sought the registration of a charge over land in Osijek (Croatia) belonging to the Zagreb Main Branch. 123. On 5 March 2003 the Osijek Municipal Court granted his application. On appeal, on 5 June 2003 the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud) upheld that judgment. It also held that with the entry into force of the Agreement on the Regulation of Property Rights between Slovenia and Croatia (see paragraph 184 below) and a subsequent decision which was adopted on 27 April 2002, the ban on disposing of the real property belonging to the Ljubljana Bank had been lifted. 124. In 2003 forty-two individuals, including Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić, lodged requests for the seizure and sale of real estate owned by the Ljubljana Bank (see paragraph 152 below). 125. On 17 July 2003 Mr Kovačić obtained a warrant of execution for the amount of DEM 49,794.30 (EUR 25,459.42) plus interest in arrears from 1 January 1992 until the date of payment and the costs of the proceedings for obtaining the charging order in the amount of HRK 2,967.42 (EUR 406,49) and the costs of the subsequent enforcement proceedings. 126. On 30 March 2004 the Zagreb Main Branch's assets were liquidated for HRK 3,903,000 (EUR 534,657.53) in the enforcement proceedings started by a Croatian savings-account holder, Mr B. Several other account holders joined those proceedings. A ruling was handed down on 9 April 2004. 127. On 24 May 2004 the proceeds of sale were deposited with the Osijek Municipal Court. On 15 July 2004 a hearing on the division of the proceeds of sale was held at the Osijek Municipal Court. 128. On 20 July 2004 the Osijek Municipal Court rendered a decision dividing up the proceeds of sale. Mr Kovačić was awarded HRK 291,306.60 (EUR 39,905) (for the main debt and the costs) and Mr Mrkonjić HRK 180,515.72 (EUR 24,728) (for the main debt and costs), both payable into Mr Žugić's account. Both were also awarded the costs of the enforcement proceedings. A number of the judgment creditors, including the two applicants, lodged an appeal against that decision in respect of the court fees (see paragraph 153 below). 129. On 21 October 2004 the Osijek County Court quashed the decision and remitted the case. 130. On 28 February 2005 a hearing was held. On 8 April 2005 the Osijek Municipal Court gave a new decision concerning the division of the proceeds of sale. 131. The relevant parts of that decision read: “The Osijek Municipal Court ... decided: 18. Ivo Kovačić (I-Ovr-186/02 and I-Ovr-128/02), represented by the attorney Milivoje Žugić from Zagreb, the amount of HRK 15,742.62 [EUR 2,156.50] payable into the attorney Milivoje Žugić's giro account ... with the Economic Bank (Privredna banka d.d. Zagreb). ... In the aggregate, compensation for the costs of the enforcement proceedings totals HRK 404,193.80 [EUR 55,369]. To this amount shall be added ... the amount of HRK 23,180 [EUR 3,175] to the judgment creditors represented by the attorney Milivoje Žugić [for the appellate proceedings ... III. The following claims shall be settled out of the proceeds of sale: ... 18. Ivo Kovačić from Zagreb – the claim referred to in writs of execution nos. I-Ovr-186/02 and I-Ovr128/02 for the part relating to court fees in the amount of HRK 2,967.42 [EUR 406] payable into the attorney Milivoje Žugić from Zagreb's giro account ... with the Economic Bank, and the main claim in the amount of HRK 288,339.18 [EUR 39,498.50], which together total HRK 291,306.60 [EUR 39,905].” 132. Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić appealed against that decision, again on the ground that they were entitled to a higher award of costs. On 7 July 2005 the Osijek County Court dismissed the appeal. The decision of 8 April 2005 thus became final. 133. On 20 July 2005 Mr Kovačić received payment of his foreign-currency deposits in full, together with the costs awarded. 134. Mr Mrkonjić holds a foreign-currency savings account at the Zagreb Main Branch. 135. On 18 July 1984 he made a payment into the account. On 18 July 1987 he signed an automatically renewable three-year term agreement for a deposit of 26,754.26 Swiss francs (CHF) earning 12.5% interest a year. 136. On 2 May 1993 he closed the account by notice in writing but was unable to withdraw the remaining balance. According to a bank statement of 30 July 1993, the amount of his savings plus accrued interest at that time came to CHF 31,265.92. 137. On 30 July 1993 Mr Mrkonjić brought a civil action in the Croatian courts to recover his savings plus interest. On 23 August 1994 the Zagreb Municipal Court ordered “the Ljubljana Bank, Zagreb Main Branch” to pay him the money due, namely CHF 31,265.92, plus default interest. The Zagreb Main Branch subsequently appealed. Its appeal was dismissed on 12 September 1995 by a court of appeal. 138. According to Mr Mrkonjić, on 28 December 1995 he withdrew part of his savings (CHF 7,850.07) from his account. 139. On 23 July 1997 the Zagreb Main Branch paid Mr Mrkonjić part of the principal together with court fees. (b) Attempts by the applicant to withdraw the remainder of his savings 140. In 1998 Mr Mrkonjić wrote several letters to the Ljubljana Bank in Slovenia asking to be allowed to withdraw his money. 141. On 10 November 1998 a bank official informed him that his money had been deposited with the NBY and that immediately after Slovenian and Croatian independence, the bank's access to the deposits in Belgrade had been suspended. Slovenia and Croatia were attempting to find a solution to outstanding issues, which included the “old savings accounts”. 142. On 9 December 1998 Mr Mrkonjić was informed by the bank official that Slovenia and Croatia had agreed that the problem of the “old savings accounts” would be resolved by international arbitration. He was given the same information on 18 January 1999 and 3 January 2000. 143. In 2000 and 2001 Mr Mrkonjić again made several requests to the Ljubljana Bank and the Zagreb Main Branch for the withdrawal of his money. By letters of 4 April 2000, 20 and 22 February, 26 June and 16 July 2001, bank officials informed him that no solution had been found. 144. On 12 February 2001 Mr Mrkonjić requested the registration of a charge over land belonging to the Zagreb Main Branch in Osijek to secure the payment of his outstanding debt amounting to CHF 26.845,61 with interest. His request was granted on 12 March 2002 by the Osijek Municipal Court, but the Osijek County Court overturned that judgment on 25 April 2002. However, on 27 February 2003, the Supreme Court reinstated the first-instance judgment. 145. Finally, a bank statement dated 14 April 2004 indicates that the amount standing to Mr Mrkonjić's credit on the savings account on that date amounted, with accrued interest, to CHF 28,562.14. (c) The “Agreement for the Assignment of a Claim” 146. On 29 April 2004 Mr Mrkonjić informed the Court that two days earlier he had withdrawn Mr Žugić's authority to represent him. 147. In addition, he sent a copy of an “Agreement for the Assignment of a Claim” under which he had assigned to Mr Žugić his outstanding claim against the Zagreb Main Branch, namely CHF 28,562.14, with interest and the costs of the proceedings. In return, Mr Žugić had undertaken to pay 70% cent of that amount to the applicant by a certain date. Mr Mrkonjić's reason for withdrawing Mr Žugić's authority and cancelling this agreement was that the latter had failed to pay him the money due by the agreed date. 148. On 20 August 2004 the Court requested Mr Žugić's comments on the information received from Mr Mrkonjić. 149. On 8 September 2004 Mr Žugić replied that that he believed that he still had instructions to represent Mr Mrkonjić since the latter had not withdrawn his authority to act. He added that the agreement had not become effective since it had been rescinded by mutual consent. 150. On 6 December 2004 Mr Mrkonjić appointed Mr Nogolica as his representative in the proceedings before the Court. 151. On 18 March 2005 Mr Mrkonjić informed the Court that he had reinstated Mr Žugić as his representative. (d) Enforcement proceedings in Croatia 152. In 2003 forty-two individuals, including Mr Mrkonjić, lodged requests for the seizure and sale of real estate owned by the Ljubljana Bank. Mr Mrkonjić's execution request was joined to the enforcement proceedings already pending in the Osijek Municipal Court. In the course of those proceedings, the Zagreb Main Branch's assets were liquidated on 30 March 2004 (see paragraph 124 above). 153. On 20 July 2004 the Osijek Municipal Court gave a decision dividing up the proceeds of the sale. Mr Mrkonjić was awarded HRK 180,515.72 (EUR 24,728) for the main debt and the costs, to be paid into Mr Žugić's account. He was also awarded costs for the enforcement proceedings, but lodged an appeal against that decision in respect of the court fees (see paragraph 128 above). 154. On 4 November 2004 the Ljubljana Bank representative informed Mr Mrkonjić that the monies had been deposited with the Osijek Municipal Court but the execution proceedings were still pending. 155. On 8 April 2005 the Osijek Municipal Court issued a new decision on the division of the proceeds of sale. Mr Mrkonjić, represented by Mr Žugić, lodged an appeal against that decision on the ground that he was entitled to a higher award of costs. On 7 July 2005 the Osijek County Court dismissed the appeal. The decision of 8 April 2005 thus became final. 156. The relevant parts of that decision read: “The Osijek Municipal Court ... decided: ... II. The costs of the enforcement proceedings shall be paid out of the amount obtained by the sale as follows: ... 9. Marjan Mrkonjić (I-Ovr-125/01), represented by the attorney Milivoje Žugić from Zagreb, the amount of HRK 25,374.22 [EUR 3,476] payable into the attorney Milivoje Žugić's giro account ... with the Economic Bank (Privredna banka d.d. Zagreb); the remainder of the judgment creditor's claim is disallowed. ... III. The following claims shall be settled from the proceeds of sale: ... 9. Marjan Mrkonjić from Basel – the claim referred to in writ of execution no. I-Ovr-125/01 for the part relating to court fees in the amount of HRK 10,132.66 [EUR 1,388], payable to the attorney Milivoje Žugić from Zagreb's giro account ... with the Economic Bank, and the main debt in the amount of HRK 170,383.06 [EUR 23,340], which together total HRK 180,515.72 [EUR 24,728]. ...” 157. On 20 July 2005 Mr Mrkonjić received payment in full of his foreign-currency deposits, including the costs he had been awarded. 158. Mrs Golubović, who was retired when she lodged her application with the Court, held a foreign-currency savings account at the Zagreb Main Branch as the heir of the original account-holder, the late Mr Ostoje Mejić, by virtue of a decision of the Karlovac Court of First Instance of 20 February 1998. That decision is final and enforceable. 159. On 6 October 1994 the amounts in Mr Mejić's first savings book were recorded as: DEM 31,065.59, CHF 4,468.50 and 2,897.60 Austrian schillings (ATS). The amounts recorded in Mr Mejić's second savings book at 31 December 1993 were: DEM 5,307.54, USD 13,074.44, CHF 904.94, ATS 6,480.51 and 167,146 Italian lire (ITL). According to the applicant, those sums had been paid in between 1986 and 1990. 160. On 29 May 2001 the Zagreb Main Branch issued a savings book in the applicant's name, further to the Karlovac Court of First Instance's decision of 20 February 1998. The deposits, including accrued interest, then came to DEM 39,085.45, USD 14,092.89, CHF 5,627.59, ATS 10,077.41 and ITL 193,495. (b) Other information submitted by the applicant 161. Mrs Golubović maintained that the Ljubljana Bank had advised the Croatian savings-account holders in 1992 to limit their withdrawals to DEM 500. 162. On 3 November 1998 a bank official at the Zagreb Main Branch informed her that all hard-currency accounts had been frozen and that no payments could be made. He confirmed that the Croatian courts had jurisdiction to hear claims but said that judgments were not being enforced owing to the Croatian branch's financial difficulties. The Slovenian and Croatian Governments were seeking a solution to the problem. (c) Proceedings in Croatia 163. According to the respondent Government, Mrs Golubović's heir, Mr Steinfl, brought an action on 6 February 2007 against “the Ljubljana Bank, Zagreb Main Branch”, requesting payment of the outstanding deposits and interest as of 28 October 2005. As far as the Court is aware, the proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.

5. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kazimierza Wielka. 6. The applicant works as a teacher in Kazimierza Wielka. In 1998 he was also a member of the Municipal Electoral Commission (Miejska Komisja Wyborcza w Kazimierzy Wielkiej). 7. In August 1998 the applicant wanted to publish an article in the local newspaper (Gazeta Kazimierska) on alleged financial irregularities in the municipality. As the newspaper had been closed down, the applicant published the article himself. On 5 October 1998 he distributed it in the form of leaflets. 8. In his article entitled “Information Bulletin: What the president of the City Council and the City Council Board have to hide”, he referred to six municipality officials. He stated that Z. J. and H. O. had been so busy interfering with the employment policies of the local schools that they had not had time to administer the municipal educational funds properly. As a consequence teachers and employers of the municipal educational institutions had not received allowances (for protective clothing) which under relevant legal provisions they should have received. In addition, the physical education teachers had received lower salaries without a certain 25 % allowance. In the applicant’s opinion the teachers did not claim this allowance as they had been afraid to lose their jobs. When the applicant had informed the mayors - T. B., K. S. and the president of the City Council Board W. M. - about the financial irregularities, he had been dismissed from his post. He had eventually been reinstated. 9. The applicant further claimed that the municipality had received subsidies from the State to provide transport for children to schools. However, the schools had been required to pay an additional contribution to the municipality. The applicant maintained that H. O. had known about this situation but had failed to take appropriate action. In addition she had not acted for the benefit of the school employees. Parties which had been organised for city council members had been wholly financed from public funds. 10. Lastly, the applicant stated that he was not surprised that W. M. had not replied to an inquiry from the Supreme Control Chamber (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli) as the municipal budget surplus had probably been used to pay bonuses and per diem allowances for the council members. He concluded: “I encourage the readers to reconsider whether between 1994 and 1998 the city was governed by the right people; whether these people can be offered yet another term of office in the October elections. Whether during those four years they have indeed acted honestly for the common well-being of the Kazimierza Wielka community or in their own personal interests. Can these people be trusted again with the city council mandates?” 11. On an unknown later date the Social Democrat group in Kazimierza Wielka (representing W. M., H. O. and K. S.) instituted proceedings against the applicant under section 72 of the Local Election Act. The applicant had not been aware of that fact. 12. On 8 October 1998 the applicant’s mother was informed that the applicant was supposed to appear before the court next day at 11 a.m. She could not inform the applicant as he was in Krakow on 8 and 9 October. 13. On 9 October 1998 the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held a hearing and gave a decision. It ordered the applicant to publish in the local newspaper Słowo Ludu an apology and a statement that he had included untrue information in his leaflet. It further ordered the applicant to pay a fine of 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 280 euros (EUR)) for the benefit of the Children’s Hospital in Kielce. 14. On 10 October 1998 the applicant went personally to the Regional Court and was informed about the decision taken on 9 October. On the same date he lodged an appeal. 15. The local elections took place on 11 October 1998. 16. On 13 October 1998 the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. The court considered that the applicant had not been duly summoned to the hearing held on 9 October. The applicant had not been able to defend himself in person and accordingly the proceedings had been invalid. 17. On 26 November 1998 the Kielce Regional Court gave a decision. The court ordered the applicant to publish in the local newspaper Słowo Ludu an apology for the fact that he had included untrue information in his leaflet. It further ordered the applicant to pay a fine of PLN 700 (approx. EUR 200) for the benefit of the Children’s Hospital in Kielce. The court held that the applicant’s article concerned six municipal officials but amongst them only three were members of the Social Democrat group. None of them had been elected to the City Council in the local elections. The court heard evidence from these persons and considered that the applicant’s statements had been untrue. The article distributed by the applicant contained statements which lacked any factual basis. In addition, it could have caused the fact that H.O. and K.S. had not been elected to the city council and W.M. had received fewer votes. The court further stressed that the applicant had not mentioned that he had a criminal record. On 26 May 1992 he had been convicted of participation in a hooligan scuffle and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for four years. Lastly, in the court’s opinion, the applicant had deliberately distributed the leaflet during the election campaign. The court did not quote the statements made by the applicant in his article but made a general assessment of the content of the article. 18. On 3 March 1999 the Krakow Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant as lodged outside the prescribed time-limit. The court considered that as the proceedings had been conducted under the Local Elections Act the appeal should have been lodged within twenty-four hours. 19. On 4 March 1999 the applicant asked to be allowed to lodge an appeal out of time. In his appeal the applicant claimed that since 1997 he had informed various institutions about financial irregularities on the part of the municipal authorities. He added that he had planned to publish his article in a local newspaper, Gazeta Kazimierowska; however the newspaper had been closed down. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention he maintained that he had been punished for criticising the local authority. However, as it emerged from the European Court of Human Rights’ case-law the limitations of acceptable criticism were wider as regards politicians than as regards private individuals. He further stressed that the court had based its opinion, that the applicant’s statements were untrue, only on the testimonies of the persons concerned by the article. The court had not referred to other pieces of evidence such as documents submitted by the applicant. He further claimed that the Regional Court had not heard evidence from him. Finally, he stressed that in his article he had never mentioned the Social Democrat group but had only referred to the municipal officials. 20. On 28 April 1999 the Kielce Regional Court allowed the applicant to appeal out of time. 21. On 8 June 1999 the Krakow Court of Appeal gave its decision. The court amended the first-instance decision, in that it ordered the applicant to pay PLN 300 PLN (approx. EUR 85) for the benefit of the Children’s Hospital in Kielce and dismissed the remainder of his appeal. The court did not quote passages from the leaflet but made a general assessment of the content of the article. With reference to the applicant’s allegations that the process of obtaining evidence had been unfair, the court held that the applicant could have produced evidence of this during the hearing on 26 November 1998; however he had not done so. It further considered that the applicant’s untrue statements could not be considered as part of “acceptable criticism” within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. It considered that proceedings provided for under section 72 of the Local Elections Act were aimed at ensuring the proper conduct of the electoral campaign by preventing infringements of the personal rights of those standing for election. The Court of Appeal considered that the content of the leaflet put the claimants in an unambiguously negative light as candidates for the local council and was aimed at preventing them from being elected. The court in particular referred to the concluding remarks of the article. The Court of Appeal considered that they were incompatible with section 72 § 1 of the Local Elections Act. In these circumstances the Court of Appeal found that the decision of the Regional Court was correct.

5. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Heidelberg. 6. The applicant and his former wife married in 1996. They have two children, a son born in December 1992 and a daughter born in May 1996. Until 1997 the applicant assumed a major part of the child care while the mother completed her studies. In July 1997 the couple separated and the children remained with the mother. The applicant had regular contact with his children until the beginning of 1998 when the mother and children moved from Heidelberg to Rees in North Rhine-Westphalia. Following the move the mother's parents assumed a large part of the child care because the mother was in full-time employment. 7. The applicant subsequently found that his regular contacts with the children were obstructed by the mother and her parents and lodged an application for the regulation of his contact rights (Umgangsrecht) with the Emmerich District Court in March 1998. By a court decision of 23 July 1998 (file no. 5 F 105/98) he was granted contact with his children every second and fourth weekend of the month from 6 p.m. Friday to 6 p.m. Sunday. 8. Since disputes regarding the applicant's contact with his children persisted, the applicant instituted further proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights. At the same time, proceedings for a provisional decision on custody were opened, as well as divorce proceedings which also dealt with the issues of custody and contact rights as ancillary matters (Folgesachen). The proceedings were to a large extent conducted jointly until the applicant's former wife's petition for divorce was granted by a judgment dated 29 November 2001 and custody of the children was decided as an ancillary matter to the divorce. However, no decision on the applicant's contact rights was taken at that time. 9. The parties continued to argue about the applicant's contact rights with the children and regular contact was interrupted repeatedly and for longer intervals. The applicant instituted several further proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights on his own behalf and on behalf of his children, as well as proceedings to restrict contact between the children and their grandparents who, according to the applicant, were manipulating the children so as to alienate them from him. A court settlement on the regulation of the applicant's contact rights, concluded on 9 September 2002, was never accepted by the applicant, and he later challenged it. 10. On 31 August 1998 the applicant filed an application with the Emmerich District Court to be granted contact with his children in accordance with the aforementioned decision of 23 July 1998, arguing that the mother was not complying with the regulations set out therein. The proceedings were instituted under file no. 5 F 272/98. At approximately the same time custody proceedings were opened before the same court under file no. 5 F 283/98. A first hearing in the custody and contact rights proceedings was held on 29 September 1998, during which the older child was heard. 11. In 1999 the applicant's wife filed a petition for divorce with the Emmerich District Court under file no. 5 F 18/99. 12. A joint hearing in the custody, contact rights and divorce proceedings took place on 22 April 1999. The parties agreed to the commissioning of an expert opinion on a possible regulation of custody and contact rights. They further agreed that until the completion of the expert opinion the contact of the applicant with his children should be provisionally regulated by the acting judge in cooperation with the Kleve child protection agency (Kinderschutzbund). 13. On 28 April 1999 the District Court ordered an expert opinion on the question of what attribution of custody rights and – should sole custody be awarded to the mother – what contact with their father would be in the children's best interest. 14. In the meantime the applicant had supervised contact in cooperation with the Kleve child protection agency, as determined for the transitional period following the hearing of 22 April 1999. However, by written submissions dated 12 August 1999 he revoked his approval of the supervised contacts and applied to the District Court for contact in accordance with the regulations set out in the court's decision of 23 July 1998, as his attempts to exercise his contact rights in August and September 1998 had been to no avail. 15. At a court hearing on 28 September 1999 the parties agreed that from 15 October 1999 the applicant would be entitled to visit his children every fortnight, accompanied by a representative of the Kleve child protection agency, and that he could have telephone contact with the children every two weeks at a set time. Nevertheless, it appears that regular contact between the father and the children ceased temporarily during the year 2000. 16. The expert opinion was finalised on 31 August 2000. The mother had previously cancelled appointments for appraisals in connection with the drawing up of the expert opinion, thereby delaying its completion. 17. In view of the repeated disputes between the parents and the fact that the children had been living with the mother for a considerable time and were settled, the expert recommended that sole custody be transferred to her. However, finding that the mother and grandparents were influencing the children against their father, she proposed that the question of where the children should reside (Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht) be referred to the Rees Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) with a view to ensuring the establishment of regular contact between the applicant and his children. The expert further recommended that the applicant be granted contact every second weekend on Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. at the children's home in Rees and suggested that the applicant should be entitled to spend holidays of one or several weeks with the children at his home in Heidelberg. 18. At a further joint hearing in the separate custody, contact rights and divorce proceedings on 19 October 2000, the District Court again heard the parties, as well as the Kleve child protection agency, which had been appointed as the children's curator ad litem (Verfahrenspfleger). The mother requested sole custody of the children for the duration of the separation of the spouses. The applicant asked to be granted contact rights in accordance with his request as reformulated on 18 October 2000 including, in addition to regular contact at the weekends, the right to spend the second Christmas holiday and half of each of the summer, autumn and Easter holidays with his children. The curator ad litem emphasised, in particular, that the son's apparent rejection of his father was due to the influence of the mother and the grandparents and recommended that regular contact between the son and the father be re-established as soon as possible. 19. On 9 November 2000, in the separate custody proceedings, the District Court decided to provisionally grant sole custody of the children to the mother. The District Court found that relations between the parents had deteriorated to the extent that joint custody was no longer in the children's best interest and since the children's main focal point and familiar environment remained with the mother it was in their interest that sole custody be awarded to her. However, the District Court deprived the mother of the right to determine the children's place of residence because her past behaviour had demonstrated that she was not willing to accept regular contact between the father and his children. It appointed the Kleve District Youth Welfare Office as the children's guardian in this respect (Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrechtspfleger). The District Court reserved its decision on the details of the applicant's contact rights until further consultation with the guardian. 20. On 13 December 2000 the applicant appealed against the attribution of sole custody to the mother and requested legal aid for the appeal proceedings. By a decision of 17 May 2001 in the divorce proceedings the District Court suspended the custody proceedings conducted as an ancillary matter to the divorce proceedings pending the decision of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal on the applicant's appeal. 21. On 21 May 2001 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's request for legal aid in the appellate proceedings on the ground that his claim was devoid of any prospect of success. The Court of Appeal confirmed that, in view of the tensions and lack of cooperation between the parents, the transfer of sole custody to the mother was in the children's best interest. Furthermore, by transferring the right to determine the children's place of residence to the Kleve District Youth Welfare Office, the District Court had set the stage for implementing regular contact between the father and his children. 22. Regarding the contact rights proceedings, the applicant or his counsel reminded the District Court on several occasions that the question of contact rights was still outstanding. By a decision dated 18 June 2001 the District Court, in view of failed mediation attempts by the guardian, set a deadline of 20 July 2001 for the parties to reach an agreement on the contact rights, failing which these would have to be determined by a court decision after consultation with the guardian. The District Court referred to the expert report and stressed that the implementation of the applicant's contact rights could no longer be delayed. 23. By a letter dated 12 July 2001 the District Court asked the parties whether a decision in the divorce and ancillary custody proceedings could be taken solely on the basis of the written submissions of the parties. On 18 July 2001 the applicant's counsel agreed. 24. On 27 August 2001 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of the District Court dated 9 November 2000 in the proceedings regarding the provisional attribution of sole custody to the mother (5 F 283/98), referring to the reasoning given in its decision of 21 May 2001. 25. By written submissions of 4 October 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court against the decisions of the Emmerich District Court of 9 November 2000 and the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal of 27 August 2001 regarding the provisional regulation of custody. 26. By a joint judgment (Verbundurteil) of 29 November 2001 the District Court granted the wife's petition for divorce and transferred sole custody of the children to her. The court again found that, in view of the lack of cooperation between the parents on matters concerning their children, as demonstrated in particular in the previous separate proceedings on the provisional regulation of custody, joint custody was not an option. Since the children's main focal point for several years had been their mother, sole custody had to be awarded to her. 27. The applicant appealed on 18 February 2002 and requested to be granted joint custody with the mother and to leave the right to determine the children's place of residence with a guardian. 28. By written submissions of 7 March 2002 the Kleve District Youth Welfare Office recommended that sole custody remain with the mother but at the same time the right to determine the children's place of residence should lie with the District Youth Welfare Office. 29. On 10 May 2002 a hearing took place before the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal to which the children had also been summoned. The children attended the hearing but were not heard by the Court of Appeal. 30. By a decision of 26 June 2002 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal partially varied the judgment of the District Court dated 29 November 2001 (5 F 18/99). It confirmed the attribution of sole custody to the mother but, with a view to enabling and encouraging regular contact between the father and his children, appointed the Kleve District Youth Welfare Office as guardian as far as the right to determine the children's place of residence was concerned. 31. By written submissions dated 30 July 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of the District Court of 29 November 2001 and the Court of Appeal of 26 June 2002 complaining, in particular, that the children had not been heard by either the District Court or the Court of Appeal. 32. Following the divorce the parties continued to argue about the applicant's contact rights. The applicant unsuccessfully objected twice to the participation of the acting judge in the respective proceedings (5 F 272/98). On 5 September 2002 a hearing took place. The applicant did not attend in person but was represented by counsel. The parties, the children's guardian and their curator ad litem were heard. The applicant, represented by his counsel, and his former wife entered into a court settlement (Prozessvergleich) stipulating that the applicant should have contact with the children every fortnight on Saturdays or Sundays from 2 p.m. in the mother's presence and by prior agreement with her. The parties further agreed that with effect from 2003 they would plan at least one holiday per year with the children at approximately the same place and time, so as to enable the applicant to meet the children regularly for a period of several days during the holidays. The applicant was further granted the right to visit the children at their mother's house on the occasion of the Iranian public holidays at a time to be previously agreed with the mother. 33. The applicant subsequently challenged the court settlement on the ground that he had not authorised counsel to enter into such agreement. He further alleged that the agreement was void since it did not sufficiently take into account the interests of the children and had therefore been concluded contra bonos mores. On 10 July 2003 a hearing took place which was attended by the applicant and a representative of the Kleve Youth Welfare Office in its capacity as guardian. The mother did not attend. On 28 August 2003 the District Court rejected the applicant's further application for a decision on his contact rights since the court settlement of 5 September 2002 constituted a binding agreement between the parties in this regard. On 2 April 2004 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the settlement was neither invalid nor void and had therefore effectively terminated the proceedings. 34. On 4 October 2004 the applicant filed an application with the Emmerich District Court to modify the settlement and extend his contact rights with a view to enabling him to spend holidays with his children at his home in Heidelberg and to have contact with them for part of the Easter and Christmas holidays. Proceedings were instituted under file no. 5 F 271/04. 35. On 20 January 2005 the District Court appointed a curator ad litem for the children. A hearing took place on 11 March 2005, during which the children were heard. By a decision of 2 May 2005 the District Court ordered an expert psychological opinion on the question of what regulation of the father's contact rights would be in the children's best interest and whether the mother and the grandparents were facilitating regular contact between the children and their father. For the period until finalisation of the expert opinion the applicant was granted unaccompanied contact with the children every fortnight on Saturdays or Sundays from 10.00 a.m. to 6 p.m. 36. On 31 August 2005 the District Court, referring to the considerable length of the proceedings in connection with the determination of the applicant's contact rights, discharged the appointed expert on the ground that she had announced that she could not provide an opinion before February 2006. A new expert was appointed who agreed to provide an opinion by the end of November 2005. The applicant objected to the new expert on the ground that she did not have the necessary professional qualifications and refused to be examined by her. An expert opinion could therefore not be established. 37. On 10 March 2006 a further hearing took place, during which the parties, the curator ad litem and the guardian were heard. By a decision of 29 March 2006 the District Court amended the court settlement of 5 September 2002 and granted the applicant access to his children every second weekend on Saturdays or Sundays from 10.00 a.m. to 6 p.m. but refrained from regulating the applicant's contact rights for the holidays since at the hearing of 11 March 2005 the children had objected to spending holidays alone with their father. The court further found that there was no evidence that the children had been manipulated by their grandparents. It specified that in reaching its conclusion it could not rely on an expert opinion because the father had refused to be examined by the appointed expert. 38. Following an appeal by the applicant on 10 April 2006, reasoned on 9 May 2006, a hearing took place before the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal on 2 March 2007, during which the parties, the children and their guardian were heard. The curator ad litem could not attend. On 20 March 2007 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and held that an extension of the applicant's contact rights could not be granted, mainly because the children had objected and thus it could not be in their interest. The Court of Appeal also found that while it was probable that the children had been negatively influenced by the mother's family as regards their father, the applicant's fixation on the conflict with the grandparents was partly responsible for the difficulties in finding a practicable regulation of his contact rights with the children. 39. On 15 May 2007 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed a complaint by the applicant that his right to be heard had been infringed in the proceedings. 40. On 12 June 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Emmerich District Court of 29 March 2006, as well as the decisions of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal of 20 March 2007 and 15 May 2007 in the proceedings instituted under file no. 5 F 271/04. He also complained about the court settlement dated 5 September 2002 in the proceedings 5 F 272/98 and the related decisions of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal of 2 April 2004. 41. In February 2008 the applicant filed a request to spend summer holidays with his children at his home in Heidelberg from 23 July to 3 August 2008 (file no. 5 F 33/08). A hearing took place on 21 May 2008, during which the parents and the children were heard. By a decision of 6 June 2008 the District Court rejected the request since the children had objected to spending the holidays with him; the request therefore could not be regarded as being in their interest. On 19 August 2008 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against that decision, since because of the passage of time a decision in the matter was no longer required. 42. On 7 December 2005 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the constitutional complaint (file no. 1 BvR 1716/01) concerning the separate custody proceedings (5 F 283/98) in which the applicant challenged the provisional attribution of sole custody to the mother. The decision was served on the applicant on 20 December 2005. (b) The divorce and ancillary custody proceedings (file no. 5 F 18/99) 43. By a decision of 17 October 2006 (file no. 1 BvR 1400/02) the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant's constitutional complaint regarding the attribution of sole custody to the mother as an ancillary matter to the divorce proceedings. Since the applicant had failed to inform the Federal Constitutional Court of his new address the decision could only be served on him on 9 December 2006. 44. The Federal Constitutional Court held that the applicant's parental rights as guaranteed by the Basic Law included an obligation for the courts to conduct custody proceedings in such a way as to obtain a reliable basis for a decision founded on the child's wellbeing. Section 50 b § 1 of the Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings (Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit, see “II. Relevant Domestic Law“ below), which required the court to hear a child in person, reflected the constitutional requirement to take the child's wishes into account when taking decisions on custody. A decision in line with the child's concerns could only be taken after the child had been given the opportunity to disclose its personal relations with the other family members during the proceedings. 45. The Federal Constitutional Court pointed out that it was questionable in the case at hand whether the proceedings had satisfied these requirements since the lower courts had not given any convincing reasons why the children had not been heard. However, there was no need to take a decision in this respect because in any event the applicant could not claim to have suffered a particularly serious disadvantage since his complaint did not have any prospect of success even if remitted to the lower courts. As had been established in the decision of the District Court of 29 March 2006 in the proceedings instituted subsequently under file no. 5 F 271/04 regarding the applicant's contact rights, it had been difficult for years to regulate the father's contact rights with his children. At a hearing that had taken place in those proceedings it had transpired that the children were rather opposed to an extension of the applicant's contact rights. (c) The contact rights proceedings (file no. 5 F 272/98 and file no. 5 F 271/04) 46. By a decision of 4 January 2008, served on the applicant on 12 January 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court (file no. 1 BvR 1544/07) declined to consider his constitutional complaint regarding the proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights, instituted under file no. 5 F 272/98 and file no. 5 F 271/04. 47. On 15 March 2001 the applicant lodged a separate application with the Emmerich District Court on behalf of and in the name of his children for the regulation of the children's contact rights with respect to their father. On 4 July 2001 (file no. 5 F 134/01) the District Court dismissed his request as inadmissible on the ground that the determination of contact arrangements between the father and the children was already the subject of the still pending proceedings under file no. 5 F 272/98. 48. On 24 July 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision, providing a statement of the grounds of appeal on 10 August 2001. On 10 September 2001 he was informed by the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal that there existed doubts as to his entitlement to represent his children in the proceedings. On 7 November 2001 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. It found that the applicant could not represent the children in the proceedings since the power of representation was part of the right to custody which in proceedings no. 5 F 283/98 had been transferred solely to the mother, with the exception of the right to determine the children's place of residence. 49. By written submissions dated 11 December 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court against the decisions of the District Court and Court of Appeal and further argued that Article 1671 of the German Civil Code in its current version was unconstitutional. By a decision of 7 December 2005, served on the applicant on 20 December 2005, the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant's constitutional complaint (File no. 1 BvR 2127/01). 50. On 9 January 2001 the applicant requested the District Court to prohibit any contact by the grandparents with his children and alternatively to grant them contact only in the presence of a third person to be determined by the children's guardian. The applicant argued that the grandparents were setting the children against him and obstructing the exercise of his contact rights. 51. The applicant had already lodged a similar application in previous proceedings (5 F 155/99), which had been rejected by a decision of the District Court dated 9 November 2000. 52. On 12 February 2001 the District Court granted the applicant's request for legal aid for the alternative motion but rejected it for his main application since the latter was devoid of any prospect of success. The Court held that even though the grandparents might have a negative impact on the children's relations with their father, a complete ban on their contact with the children was neither practicable, owing to the proximity of their respective homes, nor in the children's interest, given the close relations between them and their grandparents. 53. On 22 March 2001 the parties were heard by the District Court, and on 5 April 2001 the court rejected the application. It found that preventing contact between the children and their grandparents could in no way help to ensure regular contact between the applicant and his children but would to the contrary further obstruct such an aim. In view of the close relationship between the mother, children and the grandparents and the fact that the grandparents assumed a considerable part of the child care, a prohibition of contact with the children was neither practicable nor in the children's best interest. 54. Following an appeal lodged by the applicant on 10 May 2002, a hearing took place before Düsseldorf Court of Appeal. By a decision of 17 May 2002 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's request for legal aid for the appellate proceedings since his appeal was devoid of any prospect of success. On 3 June 2002 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal since there was nothing to establish that contact with their grandparents was contrary to the children's wellbeing and there was no evidence that the grandparents had obstructed contact between the children and their father or had damaged their relationship. 55. On 17 October 2006 (1 BvR 1194/02) the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant's constitutional complaint that his parental rights had been violated by the decisions of the lower courts. It held that the right to determine the contact of the children with third persons was part of the right of custody which had been awarded solely to the mother. The applicant's parental rights could therefore not be directly affected by the contact of his children with third persons and his own contact rights could be affected only indirectly. However, a limitation on the contact rights of third persons with the children could not entail any binding regulation of the applicant's contact with his children and he could thus not claim that his own rights were affected.

4. The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Vienna. 5. The applicant's husband was a civil engineer, and affiliated compulsorily to the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants (Bundeskammer der Architekten und Ingenieurkonsulenten) and its pension fund (Versorgungsfonds). 6. The applicant's husband, who had moved out of the marital home in 1985 and lived with another partner, died in 1992. 7. The applicant applied orally for payment of a survivor's pension in 1992, and was informed that she did not have a claim to a pension since her husband had been living with another woman. Only the latter was entitled to claim a survivor's pension. 8. At first, the applicant did not follow up on her application, but by application dated 22 March 2001 she requested pension payments. 9. On 25 June 2001 the Committee of the Welfare Institutions (Kuratorium der Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen) declined payment of a survivor's pension since the applicant and her husband had ceased to live in a common household. Due to changes to the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions (Statut der Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen) and the wording of the statutes at the time of the applicant's husband's death, the partner had the same right to a survivor's pension as the widow. Since the applicant's husband had lived in a common household with another partner, the latter was entitled to a survivor's pension. 10. The applicant appealed and the Board of Directors of the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants (Vorstand der Bundeskammer der Architekten und Ingenieurkonsulenten) decided on 11 October 2001 to uphold the decision of the Committee of the Welfare Institutions. 11. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) on 22 November 2001, which decided to examine the relevant provisions of the Chamber of Engineers Act (Ingenieurkammergesetz) and the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions. On 23 June 2003, it set aside several provisions of the Chamber of Engineers Act as unconstitutional. Furthermore it set aside the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions as unlawful and on the same day decided to refuse to deal with the applicant's complaint, as the matter was not excluded from the Administrative Court's jurisdiction. 12. Upon the applicant's request of 18 August 2003 her case was transferred to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). In her request the applicant had mentioned her old age and the duration of the proceedings. In the proceedings before the Administrative Court, the Board of Directors of the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants submitted their observations on 5 November 2003, to which the applicant replied on 24 November 2003. 13. The applicant applied again for a survivor's pension on 29 July 2004. The request was dismissed on 6 December 2004 by the Committee of the Welfare Institutions as the case was still pending before the Administrative Court. An appeal was rejected by the Board of Directors on 7 February 2005. The applicant complained to the Administrative Court on 21 March 2005. On an unknown date the Administrative Court decided to join both complaints. 14. On 27 November 2007 the Administrative Court set aside the contested decision, since it was based on a statute the Constitutional Court had set aside as being unconstitutional. 15. By a decision of 15 April 2008, which was served on the applicant's counsel on 18 April 2008, the Board of Directors of the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants awarded the applicant a survivor's pension from 1 March 2001 onwards. The pension was fixed at a gross amount of 1,077.03 euros (EUR) per month for 2001. The applicant was paid all pension arrears in June 2008. The amounts due for the years 2002 to 2008 were adjusted, apparently to reflect the increase in prices. In all, the applicant received a net amount of EUR 104,748.10.

52. The applicants, Mr Abdul-Vakhab Shamayev, Mr Rizvan (or Rezvan) Vissitov, Mr Khusein Aziev, Mr Adlan (or Aslan) Adayev (or Adiev), Mr Khusein Khadjiev, Mr Ruslan Gelogayev, Mr Akhmed Magomadov, Mr Khamzat Issayev, Mr Robinzon Margoshvili, Mr Giorgi Kushtanashvili, Mr Aslambek Khanchukayev, Mr Islam Khashiev alias Rustam Elikhadjiev alias Bekkhan Mulkoyev and Mr Timur (or Ruslan) Baymurzayev alias Khusein Alkhanov (see paragraphs 54 and 55 below)[2], are thirteen Russian and Georgian nationals who were born in 1975, 1977, 1973, 1968, 1975, 1958, 1955, 1975, 1967, 19...[3], 1981, 1979 (or 1980) and 1975 respectively. 53. On 17 and 18 October 2002 Mr Shamayev, Mr Vissitov, Mr Aziev, Mr Adayev and Mr Khadjiev, namely the applicants who had been extradited from Georgia to Russia on 4 October 2002, were placed in a pre-trial detention centre (“SIZO”) in A, a town in the Stavropol region, in the North Caucasus (see paragraph 17 above). Their place of custody between 4 and 17/18 October 2002 remains unknown. On 26 July 2003 Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev were transferred to a SIZO in town B, in the Stavropol region. Following the Court's request, on 7 October 2003 the Russian Government communicated the address of this SIZO and confirmed that Mr Aziev was also detained there (see also paragraph 242 below). They did not specify the date on which he had been transferred. 54. Having been unable to hear the applicants extradited to Russia (see paragraph 49 above), the Court has used the surnames provided by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili for four of them. The name of Mr Khusein Khadjiev, the fifth applicant, is that mentioned on his application form, which reached the Court on 27 October 2003 (see paragraph 235 below). 55. As to the non-extradited applicants, Mr Margoshvili has been free since his acquittal on 8 April 2003 (see paragraph 94 below); Mr Gelogayev was released following a judgment of 6 February 2004 (see paragraph 99 below); Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Issayev, Mr Magomadov and Mr Kushtanashvili were released on 5 and 6 January 2005 and 18 February 2005 (see paragraph 98 below). The identity of those six applicants has been established by the Court (see paragraphs 110-15 below). After disappearing in Tbilisi on 16 or 17 February 2004, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were arrested by the Russian authorities on 19 February 2004. They are apparently detained at present in the Essentuki pre-trial detention centre (see paragraph 101 below). Having been unable to hear them in Russia (see paragraphs 46 et seq. above), the Court will refer to them by the surnames communicated by their representatives when lodging the application. 56. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and established by the Court during its fact-finding visit to Tbilisi, may be summarised as follows. 57. Between 3 and 5 August 2002 the applicants crossed the Russo-Georgian border near the Guirevi checkpoint (Georgia). Some of them were injured and were carrying sub-machine guns and grenades. Having asked the Georgian border guards for help, they apparently handed over their weapons voluntarily. An identity check was carried out. As a result, the names of the individuals claiming to be Abdul‑Vakhab Shamayev, Rizvan (or Rezvan) Vissitov, Khusein Aziev, Adlan (or Aslan) Adayev (or Adiev), Khusein Khadjiev (or Khosiin Khadjayev, Khajiev), Ruslan Mirjoyev, Adlan (Aldan) Usmanov, Khamzat Issiev, Ruslan Tepsayev, Seibul (or Feisul) Bayssarov, Aslan Khanoyev, Timur (or Ruslan) Baymurzayev (or Baemurzayev) and Islam Khashiev were recorded. Only the first five applicants would appear to have been in possession of Russian passports. 58. The applicants were immediately transferred by helicopter to Tbilisi; they were initially placed in a civilian hospital, where those who were injured were operated on. On 5 August 2002 Mr Tepsayev (Margoshvili), Mr Vissitov, Mr Baysarov (Kushtanashvili), Mr Aziev, Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev and Mr Issiev (Issayev) were charged with importing weapons in breach of the customs regulations (Article 214 § 4 of the Criminal Code), illegally carrying, handling and transporting weapons (Article 236 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Code) and crossing the border illegally (Article 344 of the Code). On 6 August 2002, further to an application by the Ministry of Security's investigating body, the Vake-Saburtalo Court of First Instance, in Tbilisi, ordered that they be placed in pre-trial detention for three months. According to the orders of 5 and 6 August, Mr Shamayev was arrested on 3 August and six other applicants on 6 August 2002. 59. On 6 August 2002, Mr Khanoyev (Khanchukayev), Mr Baymurzayev, Mr Khashiev, Mr Usmanov (Magomadov), Mr Mirjoyev (Gelogayev) and Mr Adayev were placed under investigation on the same charges. On 7 August 2002 the Vake-Saburtalo Court of First Instance ordered that they be placed in pre-trial detention for three months. It appears from those orders that Mr Usmanov (Magomadov) and Mr Mirjoyev (Gelogayev) were arrested on 7 August, Mr Adayev on 5 August and the three other applicants on 6 August 2002. 60. On the basis of those orders, on 6 and 7 August 2002 the applicants were transferred to Tbilisi Prison no. 5, with the exception of Mr Margoshvili, who was placed in the central prison infirmary. On an unspecified later date Mr Adayev was also hospitalised (see paragraph 142 below). According to the detention orders, all the applicants have Russian nationality. 61. On 1 November 2002 the pre-trial detention orders in respect of Mr Margoshvili, Mr Issayev and Mr Kushtanashvili were extended for three months by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. On 4 November 2002 the same court also extended by three months the pre-trial detention orders in respect of Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev, Mr Magomadov and Mr Baymurzayev. 62. On 6 August 2002 Mr V.V. Ustinov, Procurator-General of the Russian Federation, travelled to Tbilisi and met his Georgian counterpart. He handed over the extradition request for the applicants. As the latter had been placed under investigation in Georgia and the documents submitted in support of the extradition request were considered inadequate in the light of Georgian legislation and international law, Mr N. Gabrichidze, the Georgian Procurator-General, declined verbally to extradite the applicants (see paragraphs 182 et seq. below). At the same meeting the Georgian Procurator-General's Office asked its Russian counterpart to submit the relevant documents in support of the extradition request, together with assurances as to the treatment the applicants would receive in the event of extradition and confirmation that their rights would be respected. 63. It appears from the file that the Georgian Procurator-General transmitted those demands on the same date in writing. He informed his Russian counterpart that on 6 August 2002 criminal proceedings had been instituted in Georgia against all of the applicants, that seven were being held in pre-trial detention and that the six others would soon be brought before a court for a ruling on their detention. He noted that the extradition request did not contain information on the identity, nationality and home addresses of the persons concerned or documents or the statutory provisions concerning the offences with which they were charged in Russia or duly certified detention orders. The Georgian Procurator-General concluded that, in view of those circumstances, “he [was] unable to examine the extradition request in respect of those individuals”. 64. On 12 and 19 August and 30 September 2002 the Russian authorities sent their Georgian counterparts the required documents, namely: (i) the investigation orders in respect of each of the applicants, issued by the decentralised service of the federal Procurator-General's Office in Chechnya, dated 8 August 2002; (ii) the international search warrant in respect of the applicants, issued by the Russian authorities on 15 August 2002; (iii) certified copies of the provisional detention orders in respect of each of the applicants, issued on 16 August 2002 under Article 108 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure by the Staropromislovsk Court of First Instance (Grozny) on an application by the investigator responsible for the case; (iv) extracts from the case file of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in Russia, setting out the charges against them; (v) photographs; (vi) copies of passports, with photographs; (vii) copies of Form no. 1[4]; (viii) other information on the applicants' nationality and identity. 65. The Georgian Government submitted to the Court only copies of the documents listed under items (i), (ii) and (iii). The documents listed in item (iv) had apparently been classified as “confidential” by the Russian authorities in the interest of the proper administration of justice. 66. According to the orders of 8 August 2002, which were submitted to the Court by the Georgian Government, the applicants were under investigation in Russia for causing bodily harm to employees of the police and security forces (a crime punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty – see Article 317 of the Criminal Code, paragraph 260 below); organising illegal armed groups and participation in such groups, with aggravating circumstances (punishable by a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment under Article 208 § 2 of the Criminal Code); gunrunning with aggravating circumstances (punishable by two to six years' imprisonment under Article 222 § 2 of the Criminal Code); and illegal crossing of the Russian Federation's border in July 2002, with aggravating circumstances (punishable by up to five years' imprisonment under Article 322 § 2 of the Criminal Code). (The same documents, submitted by the Russian Government, are dated 13 August 2002 with regard to Mr Adayev and Mr Vissitov.) 67. As Article 6 of the Georgian Criminal Code prohibits the extradition of an individual to a country in which the crime with which he or she is charged is punishable by the death penalty (see paragraph 256 below), the Georgian Procurator-General's Office asked the Russian authorities to guarantee that that penalty would not be imposed on the applicants. 68. In his letter of 26 August 2002, Mr V.V. Kolmogorov, Russian Acting Procurator-General, informed his Georgian counterpart that an investigation had been opened in Russia after an attack on Russian army units by illegal armed groups in a border area on 27 July 2002. Having learned that thirteen individuals who illegally crossed the border shortly after this attack had been arrested in Georgia, and having questioned three witnesses, the Russian authorities had placed those individuals under investigation. Given that the individuals concerned had been armed when they crossed the border, and having regard to other evidence, the Russian authorities believed that they were the perpetrators of the above attack. Mr Kolmogorov pointed out that the Georgian authorities had stated that they would be prepared to extradite the applicants if the Russian side submitted the necessary documents. Since all of those documents had been handed over on 19 August 2002, the Russian authorities repeated their request for extradition of the individuals concerned on the basis of the Minsk Convention, concluded under the auspices of the Community of Independent States (CIS – see paragraph 266 below). Mr Kolmogorov provided assurances that, given the moratorium on the death penalty in force in Russia since 1996, the individuals concerned would not be sentenced to death. At the same time, he asked that the case file in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in Georgia be sent to the Russian authorities, who would take responsibility for the subsequent proceedings. 69. On 27 August 2002 Mr V.I. Zaytsev, Russian Deputy Procurator-General, informed the Georgian authorities that a moratorium on the death penalty was in force in Russia and that, pursuant to a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2 February 1999 (see paragraph 262 below), no one could be sentenced to death by any court in a subject of the Federation. 70. On 22 September 2002 the charges against the applicants in Russia were redefined and extended. The applicants were also placed under investigation for terrorism. The texts of the relevant orders, issued separately in respect of each applicant, are identical, as were those of 8 August 2002 (see paragraph 66 above). 71. In his letter of 27 September 2002, Mr Kolmogorov informed his Georgian counterpart that the applicants had also been placed under investigation for terrorism and banditry with aggravating circumstances, crimes which were punishable by eight to twenty years' imprisonment (Articles 205 § 3 and 209 § 2 of the Criminal Code). He gave assurances that the Russian Procurator-General's Office “[promised] the Georgian authorities that, in accordance with the rules of international law, these individuals [would enjoy] all the defence rights provided by law, including the right to assistance by a lawyer, [and would] not be subjected to torture or to treatment or punishment that was cruel, inhuman or contrary to human dignity”. In addition, he pointed out that “since 1996, a moratorium on the death penalty [had] been in force and that, consequently, the individuals who were to be extradited [would] not risk being sentenced to death”. As in the letter of 26 August 2002, the thirteen applicants are cited by name, without exception. 72. After examining the documents submitted by the Russian authorities, information from the Georgian Ministry of Security and evidence gathered at the time of arrest, the Georgian Procurator-General's Office identified, firstly, Mr Abdul-Vakhab Akhmedovich Shamayev, Mr Khosiin Khamidovich Khadjiev, Mr Khusein Mukhamedovich Aziev, Mr Rezvan Vakhidovich Vissitov and Mr Adlan Lechievich Adayev (the names are spelt as they were written in the extradition orders). In view of the seriousness of the charges brought against them in Russia, the Georgian Deputy Procurator-General signed the extradition orders on 2 October 2002. On the following day Mr P. Mskhiladze, Director of International Relations at the Procurator-General's Office, wrote to the Prisons Department at the Ministry of Justice in order to organise the execution of the orders (see paragraph 178 below). The five applicants were due to be transferred from prison to the airport at 9 a.m. on 4 October 2002. 73. However, on the evening of 3 October 2002, Mr Gabaydze, a lawyer for several of the applicants before the domestic courts, appeared on television claiming that he had obtained alarming information from a confidential source to the effect that the extradition of certain applicants was imminent (see paragraphs 124, 214 and 216 below). The following morning the applicants' lawyers, relatives and friends, and representatives of the Chechen minority in Georgia, blocked off the area around the prison and held a demonstration. 74. At 10.10 p.m. on 4 October 2002 the five applicants were handed over to representatives of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) inside the perimeter of Tbilisi Airport. The applicants' representatives have submitted footage of certain scenes of the extradition, broadcast on the Georgian Rustavi-2 channel on the evening of 4 October 2002. Four individuals are seen being hauled onto an aeroplane by Georgian special troops, who yank the prisoners' chins up in a harsh manner for the cameras. Mr Shamayev, Mr Adayev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Khadjiev are identifiable from the photographs in the Court's possession (see paragraph 20 above). Mr Aziev is not seen at any point. Mr Khadjiev has an injury to the neck and red marks around his jaw. Mr Vissitov is injured in the left eye. However, it is impossible to assess the extent of their injuries from the recording, which also shows the applicants' arrival in Russia. The extradited men, wearing blindfolds, are shown being removed from the plane by uniformed masked men, one on each side of the prisoners, who are being held bent double with their arms crossed behind their backs and their heads pointing downwards. 75. The recording ends with the following words, spoken by a Georgian journalist: “...Unless the Georgian authorities provide rapid proof that they have not handed over innocent unidentified individuals to Russia, it will be quite obvious that this extradition is a gift to Mr Putin on the eve of the Summit of the member States [of the Community of Independent States]” (held in Chişinău on 6 and 7 October 2002). 76. On 8 October 2002 Mr Ustinov informed the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court that the Russian authorities had provided their Georgian counterparts with all the necessary guarantees concerning the applicants' treatment in the event of extradition. In his words, “five of the thirteen Chechen terrorists having been handed over, the Georgian side [was] unnecessarily delaying the extradition of the others, on the sole ground that their identity had to be established”. 77. In his letter of 16 October 2002, the Russian Deputy Procurator-General thanked the Georgian authorities “for granting the request to extradite five terrorists”. He claimed that the applicants had been examined by doctors on their arrival in Russia, “their health [had been] found to be satisfactory”, lawyers had been “assigned”, the investigation was being conducted “in strict conformity with the requirements of the legislation on Russian criminal procedure” and that “documents [existed] proving that they [had] Russian nationality”. He repeated the assurance, “provided to the Georgian authorities on numerous occasions”, that, “in accordance with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and of Protocol No. 6, these persons [would] not be sentenced to the death penalty and [would] not be subjected to torture or to inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment”. Furthermore, measures to identify the non-extradited applicants from photographs had made it possible to identify them as the perpetrators of the attack against the Russian army on 27 July 2002 in the Itum-Kalinsk district (Chechen Republic). Promising that “other comprehensive identification procedures [would be] conducted after their extradition”, the Russian Deputy Procurator-General repeated the request for extradition of the applicants still held in Tbilisi, in accordance with Articles 56, 67 and 80 of the Minsk Convention. 78. On 28 October 2002 the Russian Procurator-General's Office again sent the Georgian authorities the judicial investigation orders in respect of Mr Gelogayev (named as Mirjoyev), Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev, and sought their extradition. (The lawyers point out that by this date the three individuals in question had already denied that those surnames, originally given to the Georgian authorities, were theirs.) 79. In his reply of 29 October 2002, the Georgian Procurator-General indicated that the names which appeared in the provisional detention orders issued by the Russian court against the eight applicants held in Tbilisi were not their real surnames and that the applicants had to be identified before their extradition could be agreed. He explained that “in contrast to the names of the five individuals extradited on 4 October 2002”, there were “serious doubts” as to the names of the six prisoners wanted by the Russian authorities and that the seventh and eighth prisoners referred to by the surnames Tepsayev and Bayssarov were in fact named Margoshvili and Kushtanashvili. They had been born in Georgia, not Chechnya. The Procurator-General regretted that “the Russian authorities [were] insisting on the extradition of Mr Tepsayev and Mr Baymurzayev, when they knew full well that Tepsayev was not Tepsayev and Baymurzayev was not Baymurzayev”. In his opinion, this also raised doubts concerning the veracity of the information provided by the Russian authorities with regard to the six other applicants. 80. On 21 November 2002 Mr Gelogayev, Mr Magomadov, Mr Kushtanashvili, Mr Issayev, Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Baymurzayev and Mr Khashiev contacted the President of Georgia and the Speaker of the Georgian parliament. They asked not to be extradited to Russia, claiming that they were “absolutely certain that they would be subjected to torture and to inhuman treatment by the Russian military and other authorities, and that they would be shot without being brought before any court”. 81. In a statement of 15 October 2002 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the “Chechen Republic of Ichkeria” declared that on 5 October 2002 Mr Khusein Aziev, an extradited applicant, had died as a result of the ill-treatment inflicted on him. On 18 October 2002 the Russian Government informed the Court that this information was false and claimed that all the extradited applicants, including Mr Aziev, were safe and sound, were in good health and were being held in good conditions in a SIZO in the Stavropol region. On 23 October 2002 the Court asked the Russian Government to send it the exact address of this establishment so that it could correspond with the applicants (see paragraph 15 above). 82. The applicants' representatives have misgivings about the credibility of the Russian Government's response. They refer to a certain Khusein Yusupov, an individual of Chechen origin who was detained at the Georgian Ministry of Security until the end of September 2002, who subsequently seemed to have disappeared. According to the Georgian authorities, he was released. According to Mr Yusupov's mother, who went to meet him on the day he was due to be released, her son did not leave the prison. The lawyers believe that he could have been “informally” handed over to the Russian authorities in order to “replace” the deceased applicant. They drew the Court's attention to the ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on Mr Aziev prior to his extradition (see paragraphs 125 and 135 below). 83. On 28 November 2002, having concluded that Mr Baymurzayev, Mr Mirjoyev and Mr Khashiev were named Alkhanov Khusein Mauladinovich, Gelogayev Ruslan Akhmedovich and Elikhadjiev Rustam Osmanovich respectively and that they were Russian citizens, the Georgian Procurator-General's Office agreed to their extradition to Russia. The extradition order expressly stated that it was to be served on the applicants and that it was to be explained to them that an appeal lay before the courts. 84. On 29 November 2002 the applicants appealed to the Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda Court of First Instance (Tbilisi). Their lawyers pointed out that the extradition request had not been drawn up using their clients' real names and that it included photographs of them taken by the Georgian authorities during their detention in Tbilisi Prison no. 5. They complained that the detention orders in respect of their clients, issued on 16 August 2002 by the Staropromislovsk Court of First Instance (Grozny) (see paragraph 64 above), contained no reference to a maximum length of detention and that the applicants' defence rights had been totally breached in the proceedings which had resulted in those orders. In view of these shortcomings, they sought a refusal of the impugned extradition request. Further, basing their argument on Russia's failure to ratify Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, they concluded that the Russian assurances were scarcely sufficient for the purposes of the European Convention on Extradition. They considered that, in order to be satisfactory, these assurances ought to have come from the President of the Russian Federation. 85. On 5 December 2002 this appeal was dismissed. On 25 December 2002 the Georgian Supreme Court overturned that decision and remitted the case. 86. On 13 March 2003 the court to which the case had been remitted held that the extradition of Mr Khashiev and Mr Gelogayev was legal. For the first time, it was stated before that court that on 27 October 2000 and 1 November 2001 (1 February 2002 according to the Supreme Court – see paragraph 88 below) Mr Baymurzayev and Mr Gelogayev had been granted refugee status in Georgian territory. The Acting Minister for Refugees stated before the court that that status had been granted under the Refugee Act (see paragraph 257 below). Having established that Mr Baymurzayev had never been deprived of his refugee status in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, the court concluded that it was impossible to extradite him to Russia. With regard to Mr Gelogayev, the court noted that, by a decision of 25 November 2002, the Ministry for Refugees had withdrawn his refugee status, on the basis of a letter from the Ministry of the Interior dated 20 November 2002 and a report from the Committee on Refugee Status. 87. Basing its decision on an expert report and on explanations provided by the representatives of the Procurator-General's Office, the court ruled that it was established that the extradition request from the Russian authorities had been accompanied by photographs of the applicants taken on 7 August 2002 by the Georgian authorities, while those individuals were imprisoned in Tbilisi Prison no. 5. According to the court, communication of the photographs to the Russian authorities had been justified since it had been necessary in order to identify the persons concerned. 88. On 16 May 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this decision in so far as it concerned the impossibility of extraditing Mr Baymurzayev. It ordered that Mr Gelogayev's extradition be suspended pending completion of the administrative proceedings instigated by him against the decision of 25 November 2002 to withdraw his refugee status. As to Mr Khashiev, the Supreme Court noted that his photograph, taken by the Georgian authorities, had been sent to the Russian authorities for the purpose of identifying him, but that this had been unsuccessful. Furthermore, the defence submitted a copy of a Russian passport indicating that Mr Khashiev was not in fact named either Khashiev or Elikhadjiev, but Mulkoyev (see paragraphs 83 above and 101 below). At the request of the Georgian Procurator-General's Office, the Russian authorities had apparently checked the authenticity of this copy and had replied on 6 May 2003 that such a passport had never been issued. Given those circumstances, the Supreme Court considered that Mr Khashiev's identity had not been established and decided to suspend his extradition; it sent this part of the case back to the Procurator-General's Office for further investigation. 89. Mr Khanchukayev and Mr Magomadov were tried by the Tbilisi Regional Court for illegally crossing the border and were acquitted on 15 July 2003 on the ground that there was no corpus delicti in their actions. In particular, it was established that both of the applicants had been injured and had been obliged to cross the Russo-Georgian border in circumstances of “dire necessity” in which they were obliged to evade a confrontation with the Russian armed forces and the siege in which they had been trapped since 25 July 2002. The Regional Court found that they had been forced to commit the offence because they had no other option and that “they had naturally considered that what was transgressed [national security, the border, etc.] was less important than what was preserved, namely their own lives”. It was noted that the investigating authorities had not questioned the border guards involved and had prosecuted the two applicants solely on the basis of their own statements. The Regional Court had examined the border guards, who had stated that, at the point where the applicants had crossed into Georgia, the border was not marked, even by a flag, and that as such it was unidentifiable and delimited in an approximate manner by the two States concerned. They confirmed that, at the material time, the areas adjoining the border, and the border itself, were being shelled by the Russian army and that the applicants had offered no resistance whatsoever in handing over their weapons and had requested asylum in Georgia. 90. This judgment was upheld on appeal on 2 December 2003; however, Mr Khanchukayev and Mr Magomadov could not be released, since they had been placed in pre-trial detention on 18 December 2002 in connection with the criminal case arising from acts of violence against State employees during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002 (see paragraphs 96 et seq. below). 91. On 9 October 2003, on the same grounds as in the case of Mr Khanchukayev and Mr Magomadov, the Tbilisi Regional Court acquitted Mr Issayev of illegally crossing the border. In particular, it established that Mr Issayev had two gunshot wounds on his left forearm when he entered Georgia. He had met Mr Khadjiev and Mr Aziev, who were also escaping from Russian shelling, in the forest. All three had sought refuge in the cabin of a Georgian shepherd named Levan. Another group of Chechens had also taken shelter there. Having learned from the shepherd that they were already in Georgian territory, the escapees had sent their host to request help from the Georgian border guards. They had voluntarily handed over their weapons and requested asylum in Georgia. Those elements had been confirmed to the Regional Court by the border guards in question (see paragraph 89 above). 92. The court also established that Mr Issayev's arrest had been brought to the attention of the Russian authorities by the Georgian Ministry of Security. After his arrest, Mr Issayev had corrected the name of his father three times before it was finally ascertained that he was the son of a certain Movli. In line with those changes, the Russian authorities had also amended the documents supporting their extradition request in respect of this applicant. The court considered that “the documents submitted by the Russian prosecution service and included in the case file seemed to have been drawn up in a contrived manner with a view to securing the extradition of the individual concerned”. They did not suggest that this individual “had been known to the Russian law-enforcement agencies ... prior to his arrest in Georgia”. 93. The acquittal was upheld on appeal on 11 December 2003. However, Mr Issayev could not be released because he had been placed under investigation in the criminal proceedings arising from acts of violence against State employees (see paragraphs 96 et seq. below). 94. On 8 April 2003 Mr Kushtanashvili and Mr Margoshvili, Georgian citizens, were acquitted on charges of carrying, handling and transporting weapons illegally. The other aspect of the case (illegally crossing the border and infringing customs regulations) was remitted for additional investigation. Their pre-trial detention was commuted to judicial supervision and they were immediately released. On 20 May 2003 Mr Kushtanashvili was rearrested in the light of the decision of 28 February 2003 ordering that he be placed in pre-trial detention in connection with the case concerning acts of violence against State employees (see paragraphs 96 et seq. below). 95. On 6 February 2004 Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were also acquitted by the Tbilisi Regional Court of crossing the border illegally. On 16 April 2004 the Georgian Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for further consideration. 96. At 9 a.m. on 4 October 2002, in the presence of two witnesses, Mr R. Markelia, investigator, drew up a damage assessment report of cell no. 88, where eleven applicants had been detained before being removed a few hours previously (see paragraph 123 below). Damage was observed: in particular, the furniture had been taken apart and the walls had been damaged. On 9 October 2002 proceedings were instituted. On 1 November 2002 the Procurator-General's Office submitted a number of objects for analysis, with a view to determining whether they had been part of the furnishings in cell no. 88. The expert report, dated 25 December 2002, identified the following objects: stick-shaped pieces of metal and metal discs, removed by hand from the window-bars and the bunk beds in cell no. 88; the foot of the cell ventilator; pieces of brick removed from the cell walls and placed inside a pair of jeans, the legs of which had been knotted; a sharpened spoon embedded in a plastic cigarette lighter to make a knife; a soup spoon, sharpened along one side; and other objects which had been part of the cell and its furnishings. 97. On 29 and 30 November and 16 December 2002 the non-extradited applicants, with the exception of Mr Margoshvili, were charged with premeditated resistance by a group of prisoners involving the use of force against State employees, and with refusing to obey lawful orders from prison warders with the intention of prejudicing the proper functioning of the prison. On 30 November and 16 December 2002 the indictments, together with translations into Russian, were served on the applicants. 98. On 24 May 2004 Mr Kushtanashvili, Mr Magomadov, Mr Issayev and Mr Khanchukayev were convicted at first instance and were each sentenced to four years' imprisonment. According to the judgment, the prisoners in cell no. 88 had seen on television that “certain Chechens” were to be extradited but, not knowing which of them were affected by that measure, they had opposed the prison wardens who tried to remove them from the cell. They were armed with metal objects which had been removed from the bed-frames and plumbing and with projectiles made from pieces of brick wrapped in sheets and clothing. They had caused injury to prison wardens and members of the special forces. On 26 August 2004 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 25 November 2004, ruling on an appeal on points of law by the applicants, the Georgian Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment and sentenced the applicants to two years and five months' imprisonment. The period spent in detention since their arrest was counted as part of this sentence. Mr Khanchukayev was released on 5 January 2005, Mr Magomadov and Mr Issayev on 6 January 2005 and Mr Kushtanashvili on 18 February 2005. 99. On 6 February 2004, in the same case, Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were convicted at first instance and given a one-year prison sentence. As the length of time spent in pre-trial detention was deducted from this sentence, those three individuals were released immediately. On 16 April 2004 the Supreme Court overturned that judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. Disappearance of Mr Khashiev (Elikhadjiev, Mulkoyev) and Mr Baymurzayev (Alkhanov) subsequent to their release 100. Following their release on 6 February 2004, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev moved in with a relative in Tbilisi; they were joined by Mr Gelogayev. On 16 February 2004 they left the house for an appointment at the Ministry for Refugees, but disappeared before ever arriving there. On 25 February 2004 the Georgian media, citing a Russian agency report, announced that the missing men were being held in a Russian prison in the town of Essentuki, on suspicion of having crossed the Russo-Georgian border illegally. On 5 March 2004 Ms Mukhashavria informed the Court of this and stated that she was anxious about the health of Mr Baymurzayev, who apparently needed an operation on his jaw. She explained that, following their release, the three applicants had not left their residence unless accompanied by their representatives. As the latter had assured them that they had nothing to fear in Tbilisi, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev had dared to venture out alone for the first time on the day in question. 101. On 13 March 2004 the Georgian Government claimed that an investigation by the Ministry of the Interior had ascertained that the two applicants had disappeared on 16 February 2004 at 10.30 a.m. They had subsequently been arrested by the Russian authorities near the village of Larsi (Republic of North Ossetia) for crossing the border illegally. On 29 March 2004 the Russian Government alleged that the two applicants had been arrested in Larsi on 19 February 2004 by the Federal Security Service on the ground that they were on the list of wanted persons. At the time of his arrest, Mr Khashiev had been carrying a false passport in the name of Mulkoyev (see paragraph 88 above). On 20 February 2004 Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev, under the names of Rustam Usmanovich Elikhadjiev and Khusein Mauladinovich Alkhanov, had been placed under investigation and imprisoned in Essentuki Prison, pursuant to a decision by the Staropromislovsk Court (Grozny). Transferred on 6 March 2004 to a SIZO in town A, they had been returned to Essentuki on 22 March 2004 for the purposes of the investigation. 102. On 8 April 2004 the Russian Government submitted photographs of these applicants, of their cells and of the SIZO in town A (shower room, medical unit and kitchen). Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were apparently detained separately; each was held in a cell measuring 16.4 sq. m, equipped with a window, toilet facilities and a radio connection. The cells contained four prisoners, the number they had been designed for. According to Mr Khashiev's “prisoner card”, he had been placed under strict surveillance. The applicants had never complained about their conditions of detention. The photographs showed them face on and from the side, and had been taken in two different rooms which did not appear to be the same as the cells shown in the above-mentioned photographs. 103. According to medical certificates dated 24 March 2004, Mr Khashiev was in good health and had no recent injuries. Mr Baymurzayev was suffering from a broken lower jaw, complicated by osteomyelitis. In 2000 he had received a shrapnel injury to the chin and had had an operation on his jaw in 2002. He had broken the same bone again in 2003. On 12 March 2004 he had undergone an X-ray examination in Russia and on 15 March 2004 he had been examined by a stomatologist, who recommended in-patient surgical treatment. 104. Mr Gelogayev was heard by the Court in Tbilisi and spoke of his distress caused by the disappearance of his two companions. He speculated that they may have been secretly extradited in exchange for certain political concessions obtained by the Georgian President during his first official visit to Russia after his election in January 2004. 105. It appears from documents submitted by the Georgian Government on 19 September 2004 that on 28 March 2004 the Tbilisi procurator's office opened an investigation into the kidnapping of Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev. The Georgian Government offered no explanation on this subject. 106. On 5 and 30 November 2004 Ms Mukhashavria submitted copies of the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 14 September and 11 October 2004 respectively in the cases of Mr Khashiev (Mr Elikhadjiev, Mr Mulkoyev) and Mr Baymurzayev (Mr Alkhanov). She claimed to have obtained them with the help of individuals close to the applicants. In the judgments Mr Khashiev is referred to as Elikhadjiev Rustam Usmanovich and Mr Baymurzayev as Alkhanov Khusein Mauladinovich (see paragraph 83 above). The first was cited as having been born in 1980 in Grozny and the second in 1975 in the village of Aki-Yurt in Ingushetia. During the trial Mr Khashiev alleged that he had been arrested on 16 February 2004, not at the Russian border, but on Tbilisi's Rustaveli Avenue. He had then been transferred to Essentuki (see paragraph 101 above). According to the judgments, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were part of an armed group formed in the Pankisi Gorge (Georgia) by a certain Issabayev for the purpose of exterminating members of the federal armed forces in Chechnya and local residents who cooperated with those troops. In July 2002 they had allegedly crossed illegally into the Itum-Kalinsk region in Chechnya, with about sixty members of the armed group in question. On 27 July 2002, surrounded by Russian border guards, the group had opened fire and attacked the guards. Eight Russian soldiers had been killed and several others injured. Given the lack of evidence of their direct participation in that attack, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were acquitted on the charge of terrorism and of the offences set out in Article 205 § 3 and Article 317 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 66 and 71 above). They were also acquitted of the offences listed in Article 188 § 4 and Article 208 § 2 of the same Code (see paragraph 66 above) on the ground that there was no corpus delicti in their actions. Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were convicted of participation in an illegal armed group, crossing the border illegally and of carrying, transporting and handling weapons illegally; they were sentenced to thirteen years' and twelve years' imprisonment respectively, to be served in a closed prison. Mr Khashiev was also convicted of using a false passport in the name of Mulkoyev (see paragraph 101 above). In imposing those sentences, the Supreme Court stated that it took account of the applicants' ages and the fact that they had no criminal record. Mr Baymurzayev's health (serious deformation of the lower jaw) was also taken into consideration. An appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation lay against those judgments. 107. According to the Russian Government, Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev were brought before the Stavropol Regional Court for trial “in the summer of 2003”. Mr Aziev was allegedly brought before the same court on 26 August 2003. On 24 February 2004 the Russian Government informed the Court orally in Tbilisi that, on 18 February 2004, the Stavropol Regional Court had delivered judgment against the first four applicants. The prosecution had called for sentences of nineteen years' imprisonment for Mr Shamayev and Mr Khadjiev and eighteen years' imprisonment for Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev. The court had sentenced Mr Shamayev and Mr Khadjiev to three years' and six years' imprisonment respectively, to be served in an ordinary prison, and had sentenced Mr Vissitov to ten years' imprisonment in a closed prison and Mr Adayev to one year and six months' imprisonment in an ordinary prison. Mr Adayev had been released immediately because he had already been in detention for this length of time. Mr Aziev had requested the assistance of an interpreter and submitted a number of procedural requests, with the result that his case had been severed from that of the others and the investigation in his regard was still ongoing. 108. The Russian Government submitted that they were unable to provide the Court with a copy of the judgment of 18 February 2004. They claimed that, under the new Code of Criminal Procedure adopted by the Russian Duma in accordance with the Council of Europe's recommendations, only the convicted person could obtain a copy of the judgment concerning his or her case. The Government expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Court, but regretted that, on this occasion, such cooperation was impossible on account of the Council of Europe's recommendations. They advised the Court that if it wished to obtain the document in question it should write to the Russian court concerned. The Court learned from a letter of 8 April 2004 from the Russian Government that an appeal had been lodged against the judgment of 18 February 2004 (see paragraph 48 above). In their submissions of 20 July 2004, the Government gave the Court to understand that the appeal court had quashed the judgment in question in its entirety (see paragraph 272 below). 109. On 25 February 2004 the Russian Government submitted to the Court in Tbilisi photographs of the SIZO in town B and of the four extradited applicants' cells, taken on 19 February 2004 (Mr Adayev, the fifth applicant, had been released on the previous day). These photographs show a spacious and well-equipped kitchen and laundry and a shower room. The applicants' cells are large and well lit, and each has a large window. They contain long tables and benches. The toilets are open, but separated by a low wall from the rest of the room. There are sinks with soap and toothpaste, brooms and water tanks in each cell, and heating pipes under the windows. Radio sets can be seen in certain cells. The package from the Government also contained a video cassette. This recording shows the four cells as described above. On the basis of the photographs of the applicants in the Court's possession (see paragraph 20 above), it is possible to identify Mr Shamayev in cell no. 22 and to recognise Mr Khadjiev in cell no. 15. On the other hand, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to spot Mr Vissitov in cell no. 18, given the backlighting and the absence of any close-ups. According to the off-camera voice commenting on the pictures, Mr Aziev had refused to be filmed. Nonetheless, a recording was made of his cell (no. 98) in which the prisoners' faces cannot be made out but their silhouettes can be seen from a distance. In each cell the number of beds is equal to or greater than the number of prisoners present during the filming. 110. Mr Khamzad(t) Movlievich Issiev (Issayev), alias Khamzat Movlitgalievich Issayev, stated that his real name was Khamzat Movlievich Issayev, that he was of Chechen origin and that he had been born on 18 October 1975 in the village of Samachki, in Chechnya. 111. Mr Seibul (Feisul) Bayssarov stated that he was called Giorgi Kushtanashvili, that he was a Georgian citizen who belonged to the Kist ethnic group and that he had been born in the village of Duisi, in the Akhmeta region of Georgia. 112. Mr Aslan Khanoyev stated that his real name was Aslambek Atuievich Khanchukayev, that he was a Russian national of Chechen origin, and that he had been born on 25 February 1981 in the village of Selnovodsk, in Chechnya. 113. Mr Adlan (Aldan) Usmanov stated that he was in fact named Akhmed Lechayevich Magomadov, that he had been born on 4 July 1955 in Pavlodar in Kazakhstan, and that he was of Chechen origin. 114. Mr Ruslan Mirjoyev stated that his real name was Ruslan Akhmedovich Gelogayev, that he was of Chechen origin and that he had been born on 16 July 1958. 115. Mr Tepsayev stated that he was in fact Robinzon Margoshvili, son of Parola, that he was a Georgian citizen of Kist origin, and that he had been born on 19 April 1967 in the village of Duisi, in the Akhmeta region of Georgia. 116. With the exception of Mr Margoshvili, who was detained in the prison infirmary (see paragraph 60 above), those applicants confirmed that they had known the extradited applicants in prison and had been held with them in the same cell. The photographs of the applicants, submitted by the Governments on 23 and 25 November 2002, were shown to them for identification. The names on the photographs had previously been covered over by the Court's Registry. 117. Each of the applicants (except for Mr Margoshvili) recognised himself in the relevant photograph submitted by the Georgian Government. Mr Robinzon Margoshvili (formerly Ruslan Tepsayev) was identified by the other applicants as Ruslan (four times) and Ruslan Tepsayev (once). 118. With regard to the two missing applicants, namely, Mr Timur (Ruslan) Baymurzayev alias Khusein Alkhanov, and Mr Islam Khashiev alias Rustam Elikhadjiev alias Bekkhan Mulkoyev (see paragraph 43 above), the first was identified as Baymurzayev (once), Timur (once), Khusein (twice) and Khusein Alkhanov (once). The second was named as Islam (twice), Bekkhan (twice), Mulkoyev (once) and Bekkhan Mulkoyev (once). 119. With regard to the extradited applicants, four applicants identified Abdul-Vakhab and one applicant identified Abdul-Vakhab Shamayev in the photograph submitted by the Russian Government as that of Mr Abdul-Vakhab Shamayev. The photograph of Mr Khusein Khadjiev was identified as Khusein (three times), Khusein Khadjiev (once) and Khusein Nakhadjayev (once). Three applicants identified Khusein Aziev and two applicants identified Khusein in the photograph submitted as that of Mr Khusein Aziev. Mr Adlan (Aslan) Adayev (Adiev) was identified as Aslan Adayev (twice) and Aslan (three times). On the other hand, all five applicants identified the person in the photograph submitted by the Russian Government as Mr Rizvan (Rezvan) Vissitov as a certain Musa. 120. By virtue of the authorities to act submitted on 9 October 2002, the six non-extradited applicants were represented before the Court by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili. On the basis of the authorities to act dated 4 August 2003, those applicants, with the exception of Mr Margoshvili, were also represented by Ms Kintsurashvili. 121. During the proceedings in Tbilisi, at which only Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Kintsurashvili were present, five applicants confirmed that, with the assistance of Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili, they had lodged an application with the Court against Georgia and Russia in order to challenge their extradition and have it stayed. They stated that they wished to pursue their application and continue to be represented by the same lawyers in the proceedings that would ensue before the Court (or, in some cases, by the lawyers then present in the room). As he had only a very basic knowledge of Georgian, Mr Margoshvili, the sixth applicant who was heard, had difficulty in understanding the questions put by the Court. However, he maintained that he was complaining about his arrest under the Chechen name of Tepsayev, as he was merely a simple Georgian shepherd. Mr Margoshvili confirmed that he had applied to the Court, that the lawyers present in the room were his representatives and that he wished to pursue his complaint. 3. The events concerning the extradition of 4 October 2002 (a) Facts as submitted by the applicants who were heard by the Court (i) Facts common to all the applicants 122. Five of the applicants who appeared were heard by the Court in Russian with interpretation into English, one of the Court's two official languages. Having stated that he was unable to read Russian, Mr Margoshvili, the sixth applicant, took the oath in Georgian; he also expressed himself in that language. 123. During the few weeks before 4 October 2002, eleven applicants had found themselves detained in the same cell (no. 88) in Tbilisi Prison no. 5. A total of fourteen prisoners had been held in the cell. Mr Adayev and Mr Margoshvili, the twelfth and thirteenth applicants, had been in the prison infirmary at the time. 124. The applicants had had a television set in their cell. Although rumours had been circulating for a while about their possible extradition to Russia, it was only on 3 October 2002 that they learned from the 11 p.m. news bulletin on Rustavi-2 that the extradition of five or six of their number was imminent (see paragraph 216 below). No names having been given, they were unaware of who exactly would be affected by that operation. They had received no prior information or official notification on this matter. The applicants understood that the information gleaned from the television was accurate when, between 3 and 4 a.m., prison wardens arrived and asked them to leave the cell so that it could be disinfected (or searched, according to Mr Kushtanashvili). The applicants categorically refused to comply, with the result that the prison governor named four individuals and asked them to leave the cell. In response, the applicants asked that nothing be done until daybreak and that their lawyers be summoned; this request was refused. About fifteen hooded members from the Georgian Ministry of Justice's special forces then entered the cell and removed the applicants one by one. They used truncheons and applied electric shocks. The applicants were beaten as they lay on the floor in the corridor. The four applicants affected by the extradition order were immediately removed and the others were placed in solitary confinement. Around 4 a.m. Mr Adayev, the fifth applicant against whom an extradition order had been issued, was transferred directly from the prison infirmary. 125. All of the applicants heard claimed that they had put up only verbal resistance to leaving the cell. They complained that they had been beaten, insulted and “treated like animals” by the special troops. Following this incident, Mr Issayev had two fractured ribs and an eye injury, the scar from which was still visible. Mr Kushtanashvili sustained injuries from truncheon blows. Mr Khanchukayev sustained extensive bruising. Mr Magomadov had a broken tooth, a laceration to the ear, an injury to the frontal bone and extensive bruising on his back and legs. Mr Gelogayev had extensive bruising on his body and other injuries (to the shoulder and cheek) and had suffered an inflammation of the left kidney, injuries which he himself described as “trivial” (see paragraphs 200, 201 and 211 below). All of the prisoners were injured more or less seriously. In particular, the applicants referred to broken ribs and a fractured shoulder in some cases, and blood-splattered heads in others. According to Mr Kushtanashvili and Mr Khanchukayev, the applicants who were to be extradited were given the most severe beatings. Mr Issayev, Mr Magomadov and Mr Khanchukayev had heard that Mr Aziev had died as a result of his injuries. According to Mr Gelogayev, Mr Aziev must have had a broken spine, since he was no longer able to walk and was dragged along the corridor by two members of the special troops. He also appeared to have an eye turned inside out. According to Mr Gelogayev, the photograph of Mr Aziev allegedly taken by the Russian authorities after his arrest could have been a copy of an old photograph. 126. Once placed in solitary confinement, the non-extradited applicants were examined by a doctor, who listed each prisoner's injuries in writing. He merely measured the extent of their bruises with a ruler and did not provide treatment. The applicants did not subsequently receive any other medical care. 127. None of the applicants confirmed that he had been informed by a member of the Procurator-General's Office that extradition proceedings were pending against him. They all claimed to have received visits from numerous persons while in prison (officially assigned lawyers, investigators and prosecutors), whose names they did not remember. They remembered having met once, in the absence of their lawyers, a man and a young woman (see paragraphs 162-66 below) who asked them to sign documents drawn up in Russian (in Georgian, according to Mr Kushtanashvili), which they refused to do. 128. With the exception of Mr Kushtanashvili and Mr Margoshvili, the applicants all claimed that they had entered Georgia in search of refuge from the armed combat in Chechnya. They denied having been armed when they crossed the border. They had not been arrested at the border, but had voluntarily given themselves up to the Georgian border guards, from whom they had sought assistance. The latter had tended to their wounds before calling for a helicopter to transport them to Tbilisi. 129. The applicants confirmed that they had all supplied false names to the Georgian authorities. With the exception of Mr Kushtanashvili and Mr Margoshvili (see paragraphs 135 and 143 below), they had acted in this way to avoid extradition to Russia and to prevent family members and friends who were still in Russia from being endangered should they (the applicants) fall into the hands of the Russian authorities. Mr Issayev alleged that he was weary of ten years of war in Chechnya and that, if it would put him out of danger, he “[would] willingly change not only his name, but also his appearance”. He was convinced that he had escaped extradition on account of his false identity. 130. Mr Gelogayev and Mr Khanchukayev indicated that their officially assigned lawyers (including Ms Magradze, according to Mr Khanchukayev) and an investigator from the Ministry of Security had advised the applicants to say that they were armed when they crossed the border, since this would ensure that they were kept in Georgia pending trial. The applicants had followed this advice. 131. The applicants all denied categorically that they had put up any resistance to State employees during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002. (ii) Specific facts submitted by each of the applicants 132. Mr Issayev stated that he was opposed to his extradition to Russia on the ground that “no distinction is made there between peaceful civilians, terrorists and fighters”. When speaking with the representatives of the prosecution service who visited them in prison, he and his fellow prisoners had always expressed their wish not to be extradited to Russia and their fear of being subjected to ill-treatment in that country. They had asked to be tried in Georgia. They had had no access to the extradition papers. According to Mr Issayev (and also Mr Kushtanashvili), the officially assigned lawyers, the investigator and the representatives of the prosecutor's office had asked the applicants to tell them their real names so that they could help them avoid extradition. Those who had complied had been extradited immediately. 133. Prior to his arrest, in August 2002, Mr Issayev had, he claimed, attempted unsuccessfully to obtain refugee status in Georgia. 134. Mr Kushtanashvili claimed that he was Georgian (of Kist origin) and was a shepherd in the area bordering Chechnya. When the region was being shelled by the Russian armed forces in August 2002, he had met seven injured Chechens who were fleeing. He had descended the mountain slopes on the border with them and taken them to a shepherds' hut. He himself had sustained a head injury that night. He repeatedly claimed not to have clear memories of the events in question on account of this injury. 135. Mr Kushtanashvili explained that, since he had no money, he had given the Georgian authorities and doctors a false Chechen name in order to pass for a fugitive and thus receive free medical care. He did not believe that his Georgian nationality represented an obstacle to extradition and considered that he was still in danger on account of his Chechen origins. In a letter sent to the Court on 13 November 2002, he alleged that, during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, the applicants had asked to see their lawyers before leaving the cell as requested. The prison governor had replied that “neither lawyer nor investigator” would turn up and that “[they should] leave the cell voluntarily before [he used] force”. In the same letter Mr Kushtanashvili also claimed that Mr Aziev had received a violent blow to the head and that one of his eyes had practically come out of its socket. He had seen him for the last time when a member of the special troops “was dragging him along the corridor like a corpse”. 136. Mr Khanchukayev stated that, shortly after his arrest, “extradition started to be mentioned”. The applicant, who was afraid of being tortured in Russia, had signed papers, the content of which he could not remember, in the hope of being tried in Georgia and avoiding extradition. In certain cases the applicants had allegedly been threatened with extradition if they refused to sign. After 4 October 2002 he had written to the Georgian President asking him not to authorise his extradition (see paragraph 80 above). He admitted that he was still afraid of extradition and that he lived in a state of uncertainty. At the initial stage of the proceedings before the Court, this applicant claimed that he could not return to Russia on account of the “genocide of the Chechen people” being perpetrated “by Russia throughout the country”. 137. Mr Khanchukayev did not recognise the explanatory statement of 23 August 2002 which, according to Mr Darbaydze, he had refused to sign (see paragraphs 163-64 below). 138. Mr Magomadov claimed that he did not know on which side of the border he had been injured, since the border line was not marked in the area in question (see paragraph 89 above). After being knocked out by a shell wound to the head, he had been carried by his comrades. A Georgian general had arrived by helicopter and had introduced himself as commandant of the border troops. He had promised the applicants that he would report the facts to the Georgian President in person and that they would be given refugee status. The general had previously given orders to the effect that the applicants were to receive hospital treatment. 139. During the meeting with a man and young woman from the Procurator-General's Office (see paragraphs 162-66 below), the applicants had been asked to sign documents without being informed of their contents. All of the non-extradited applicants had met those individuals, but in small groups. Mr Magomadov himself had been brought before the two members of the prosecution service in the company of Aslan (Khanoyev alias Khanchukayev) and Bekkhan (Khashiev alias Mulkoyev) (see paragraph 419 below). Mr Magomadov claimed that he still feared extradition. 140. Mr Gelogayev claimed that he had held refugee status in Georgia since February 2002 (see paragraph 86 above) and had been granted this status in the Akhmeta region, which bordered Chechnya. He had then left legally for Chechnya, travelling via Baku (Azerbaijan), in the hope of bringing his family to Georgia. Once in Chechnya, he had begun looking for a family member who had been missing for more than a year, and had arrived in the Itum-Kalinsk region. There, he had witnessed armed combat between the Russian federal army and the Chechen fighters, who had been surrounded on 25 July 2002. Georgia had been the only way out. He had received a shrapnel wound to the leg but had nonetheless walked as far as the Georgian border, which he had crossed on 3 August 2002. He had requested asylum from the Georgian soldiers who arrived on the scene by helicopter. He had been hospitalised and operated on in Tbilisi, then transferred to a prison infirmary two days later. 141. Mr Margoshvili stated that in August 2002 he had been wounded while watching his flock in pastureland near the border. He did not know whether he had been wounded by Georgians, Russians or Chechens. After being taken to Tbilisi, he was treated in the prison infirmary, where he was detained for three months. He was informed that he had been arrested because he was carrying weapons. He claimed that he had not been imprisoned “with a weapon, but with a quilted jacket and shepherd's boots”. 142. Mr Margoshvili confirmed that he had been in the same infirmary ward as Mr Adayev, one of the five extradited applicants. He did not mention a television set or other information source that would have enabled Mr Adayev to learn, as the other extradited applicants had, that he was likely to be handed over to the Russian authorities in the very near future. At about 4 a.m. on 4 October 2002 Mr Adayev had been taken away, after getting up and following the members of the hospital staff without a word. Masked men were waiting for him in the hospital courtyard. During their stay in the infirmary, Mr Adayev had frequently asked Mr Margoshvili to cut out his tongue, arguing that this would help him to endure questioning more easily if he were extradited. Mr Margoshvili had firmly refused to do so. 143. Mr Margoshvili claimed that he had not assumed a false name of his own volition. Having been taken to hospital in a serious condition, he learned on recovering consciousness that he was being referred to as Mr Tepsayev. At first he had been happy to receive free medical treatment on the strength of this name, but had then rapidly challenged this identity in the infirmary and subsequently before a judge. (b) Facts as submitted by the State employees (i) The prison staff 144. The Court heard Mr A. Dalakishvili, in-house inspector at Tbilisi Prison no. 5 (who was on duty on the night of 3 to 4 October 2002), Mr Buchukuri, employee of the Ministry of Justice's Prisons Department (who was also on duty that night), Mr E. Kerdikoshvili, chief inspector of the Prisons Department's service responsible for transporting foreign nationals, and Mr N. Chikviladze, employee of the Prisons Department, and head of security at Prison no. 1. 145. Those individuals all said that they had not been officially informed of the applicants' imminent extradition and that they had learned later, on the morning of 4 October 2002, that five Chechen prisoners were to be extradited. Mr Buchukuri and Mr Dalakishvili alleged that, as they had been on duty, they were unable to watch television to keep themselves informed. According to Mr Chikviladze, only the prison governor, his deputies and the head of the prison secretariat (special division) had been informed of the applicants' imminent transfer. He had learned from the media that four or five Chechen prisoners were to be extradited, but none of the prison staff had been told their names. 146. The above-mentioned persons confirmed that thirteen or fourteen Chechen prisoners were held in the same cell. According to Mr Tchikviladze, the decision to keep these prisoners together had been based on their religious convictions, so that they would not be hindered in carrying out their daily rites. 147. At about 4 a.m. on 4 October 2002, the above-mentioned prison staff were informed that a loud noise was coming from cell no. 88. Mr Dalakishvili instructed a warden to find out what was happening. The latter looked through the peephole in the cell door and saw that the prisoners were dismantling beds and shouting in a foreign language. According to Mr Chikviladze, after a certain period the warden was no longer able to observe what was going on, as the prisoners had covered over the peephole from the inside. Mr Dalakishvili submitted a written report on the situation to the prison governor, who was still in his office. At the latter's request, Mr Dalakishvili, Mr Buchukuri and Mr Chikviladze, accompanied by other members of staff and the deputy governor, went to the cell to see what was happening. The deputy governor ordered that the cell be opened. According to Mr Dalakishvili, they hoped to talk to the applicants. When the door was opened, they found the cell in chaos, heard shouts and saw that bits of metal and bricks were being thrown in their direction. Mr Chikviladze shouted an order to close the door quickly. He asked that it be left closed until such time as he had reported the situation to his superiors in the Prisons Department. Mr Dalakishvili, who did not understand the reason for such violence, believed that a riot was about to begin and increased the number of wardens on the floor in question. 148. Returning to the prison's administrative wing, Mr Chikviladze saw that the director of the Prisons Department was already there, together with about ten or so other people. He was then officially informed that four prisoners were to be removed with a view to their extradition. A vehicle was apparently ready in a neighbouring courtyard and the airport authorities had been informed. Accompanied by the director of the Prisons Department, the prison governor and their deputies, the wardens again gathered in front of the cell. The prison governor entered first, with four sealed files under his arm, one for each of the prisoners affected by the extradition order. The others followed him into the cell. According to Mr Kerdikoshvili, the prisoners were standing on their beds and throwing bowls, plates and other objects at them. The governor informed them that an internal measure was to be implemented in the cell and that the prisoners were to leave it. According to Mr Chikviladze, the governor mentioned the need to search the room. The prisoners categorically refused to obey and launched a direct attack. 149. The wardens heard by the Court confirmed that all the applicants were armed with pieces of metal which had been removed from the beds, metal grills which they had removed from the windows and trousers filled with bricks and tied at the end of the legs, which were being used as projectiles. 150. In this connection Mr Chikviladze explained that Prison no. 5 was housed in a building that had been constructed in 1887, and that the walls were so eroded that bricks could be pulled out by hand. Mr Dalakishvili also stated that the walls were in a state of disrepair and that bricks could be removed using one's bare hands. Having subsequently participated in drawing up the damage assessment report (see paragraph 96 above), Mr Chikviladze noted that the cell walls had been damaged and that the metal bed-frames were in several pieces. The water pipe above the sink had apparently been pulled out of the wall. 151. Since the prison governor's arrival in the cell had led to an open attack, masked members of the special troops, who had previously been posted in the staircase, entered the premises at the governor's request. Mr Dalakishvili and Mr Chikviladze considered that the use of special troops had been necessary in view of the scale of the resistance put up by the prisoners. They both agreed that hand-to-hand combat had taken place between the prisoners and members of the special troops. According to Mr Buchukuri, the special troops, who had been placed at the prison administration's disposal in case of necessity, usually carried a truncheon each and could hardly enter the prison armed in any other way. 152. According to Mr Dalakishvili, the applicants had heard rumours about the extradition order from the television. Mr Chikviladze supposed that they could have kept mobile phones illegally in their cell or could have listened to the radio. In addition, certain neighbouring cells contained television sets and their occupants could have passed on the news to the applicants without difficulty. 153. Mr Dalakishvili alleged that, on entering the cell behind the prison governor, he had been injured on the elbow and knee by “projectiles” fabricated on the spot by the prisoners (see paragraph 205 below). He nonetheless returned to his office, where the non-extradited prisoners had been taken for a check-up. Mr Dalakishvili observed that all of the applicants were covered in dust, but no one was bleeding. He stated that if Mr Magomadov had had a lacerated ear he would have noticed it (see paragraph 125 above). As he himself had not noted any injury and the applicants had not asked for medical assistance, Mr Dalakishvili had not been required to call a doctor at that point. Since the prisoners who were to be extradited had been led away immediately, he had not seen them again in his office and therefore had not seen Mr Aziev. 154. At the end of his shift, on coming across demonstrators outside the prison, Mr Dalakishvili learned that prisoners had been extradited. Given his position, he had been surprised that the authorities had not informed him so that, as was customary, he could inform the prisoners concerned on the day prior to their extradition. He explained to the Court that, under normal circumstances, a written, signed and stamped notification was sent to him by the head of the prison secretariat which managed the prisoners' personal files; Mr Dalakishvili's role was to check the documents for which he was responsible and to inform the individual concerned of the time of departure, so that he or she would have time to prepare. This procedure had not been followed in the instant case. 155. Mr Buchukuri claimed that he had been wounded in the foot by a piece of metal (see paragraph 204 below), that his wound had bled and that he had immediately gone to the prison administration's premises for treatment. Although his wound was not serious, it had required treatment for approximately ten days. 156. Mr Kerdikoshvili stated that, on arriving at the prison, he had learned that the prisoners were refusing to leave their cell, but that no one had explained to him why they were refusing to do so or why they had to be moved. Having followed the prison governor into the cell, he had been injured on the hand (see paragraph 204 below) and had immediately gone downstairs to the infirmary. Other wardens had also been injured and the prison doctor had provided medical treatment. 157. According to Mr Chikviladze, two or three prisoners, armed with pieces of metal, climbed to the top of the bunk beds when the prison governor entered the cell. One of them took aim at Mr Chikviladze several times, but failed to hit him. A member of the special troops then pushed Mr Chikviladze out of the way for his own safety. The most violent prisoners had been the four individuals whose sealed files the governor had brandished; two other prisoners had attempted unsuccessfully to calm them down. 158. Mr Chikviladze considered it likely that, like the State employees, the prisoners could have been injured, given the hand-to-hand fighting that had taken place in the cell. (ii) A member of the special troops from the Ministry of Justice 159. Mr Z. Sheshberidze explained that the special troops were based not far from Prison no. 5, which they could reach in ten minutes if they ran. On the night in question he and about fifteen of his colleagues had been instructed to defuse the situation in cell no. 88. Unaware of the reason for the disorder, the group had been positioned in staircases near the cell, from where noise and shouting in a foreign language could be heard. The prison governor had entered the cell, but had returned a few minutes later and asked the troops to intervene. They had complied and had performed their task “after encountering limited resistance”. The prisoners had been armed with pieces of metal and missile-like objects made from trousers containing a solid mass. Mr Sheshberidze stated that he and his colleagues had indeed been wearing masks, in line with the regulations. On the other hand, they had not worn special vests or any other protective equipment. Armed only with rubber truncheons, they had not carried electric batons or other weapons. They had made the prisoners lie down in the corridor and had handed them over to the prison wardens before leaving the building. Mr Sheshberidze had learned from the television that the applicants had been removed from the cell in order to be extradited. 160. Mr Sheshberidze claimed that he had sustained a small injury (see paragraph 204 below). He denied the allegation that he and his colleagues had beaten the applicants mercilessly and insulted them. (iii) Representatives of the Procurator-General's Office 161. The Court questioned Mr L. Darbaydze and Ms A. Nadareishvili, trainee prosecutors at the Procurator-General's Office at the relevant time, Mr P. Mskhiladze, director of international relations at the Procurator-General's Office, and Mr N. Gabrichidze, former Georgian Procurator-General. 162. Mr Darbaydze explained that, under the supervision of Mr Mskhiladze, his superior, he had been responsible for various tasks in connection with the disputed extraditions. In particular, Mr Mskhiladze had asked him to visit the applicants in prison, to inform them that the issue of their extradition was being examined by the Procurator-General's Office and to request explanations concerning their nationality. He had carried out this visit on 23 August 2002 with his fellow trainee, Ms Nadareishvili, and without the lawyers being present, since “it was not official questioning, but a request for information”. On that date they met only five applicants. 163. Mr Darbaydze had first spoken with Mr Khanchukayev in Russian in a separate room. The latter had provided information orally, but had refused to sign the corresponding document that would provide formal confirmation of his remarks (see paragraph 137 above). On being returned to the room where the other prisoners were being held, Mr Khanchukayev had said something to them in Chechen. The prisoners then collectively refused to “provide the required explanations and sign the relevant document”, on the ground that they were not assisted by a lawyer and a Chechen interpreter. 164. The document that Mr Khanchukayev had refused to sign was an explanatory statement intended for the Procurator-General. It contained the applicant's assertions to the effect that he was Chechen and had been born in Grozny in 1981; had arrived in Georgia on 4 August 2002 and been arrested by the Georgian authorities; had been held for a few days in the Ministry of Security's investigation prison then transferred to Prison no. 5 in Tbilisi; and had been informed at the time of his arrest that he had been arrested for crossing the border illegally. The following sentence can be read at the bottom of this piece of paper: “The prisoner refused to sign this document and requested the assistance of a lawyer.” The document had been drawn up by Mr L. Darbaydze, trainee prosecutor. According to the minutes of the meeting, signed only by Mr Darbaydze and Ms Nadareishvili, they had unsuccessfully attempted “to obtain an explanatory statement from the applicant in connection with his extradition”. 165. Following this refusal to communicate, Mr Darbaydze postponed the discussion in order to seek the assistance of an interpreter. Mr P. Mskhiladze, his superior, arranged with the Ministry of Security's team of investigators (see paragraph 190 below) that, following an interview scheduled for 13 September 2002, Mr Darbaydze would be able to meet the applicants. Mr Darbaydze thus received an assurance that lawyers and a Chechen-speaking interpreter would be present at the meeting. 166. On 13 September 2002, accompanied by his colleague Ms Kherianova, Mr Darbaydze went to the prison. He met Mr T. Saydayev, an interpreter hired by the Ministry of Security (see paragraph 189 below), and explained to him that, “on account of an ongoing extradition procedure, [he wished] to receive information from the Chechen prisoners that would enable their nationality to be established”. The interpreter had translated these remarks, but, since he did not speak Chechen, Mr Darbaydze had been unable to assess the accuracy of the interpretation. In response, the applicants reiterated their refusal to provide information and to sign the corresponding documents, which had been drawn up in Russian. Nonetheless, the documents were read out to them. 167. As the applicants' representatives had indicated that Mr Darbaydze's name did not appear on either of the two “visitors' logs (citizens, lawyers and investigators) for Prison no. 5” covering the periods of 5 August to 12 September and 13 September to 17 October 2002 respectively, Mr Darbaydze explained that on 23 August and 13 September 2002 his name had not been entered in those logs but in the prison's “register of access to the investigation room”. Since prosecutors – unlike visitors, lawyers and investigators – had no need of a pass and could enter the prison on the strength of their professional badge alone, he did not believe that his name could have been entered in the visitors' log mentioned by the lawyers. By the same token, his name did not appear in the “register of requests to bring a prisoner [from his or her cell]” because, on the two dates in question, he had joined the applicants in the investigation room, to which they had been conducted at the request of the Ministry of Security's investigators (see paragraph 190 below). 168. Mr Darbaydze explained that the Ministry of Justice, which was responsible for executing extradition orders, had been informed immediately of the decision of 2 October 2002 (see paragraph 178 below). On the same date Mr Mskhiladze had personally informed the applicants' domestic lawyers by telephone and, furthermore, had served the written extradition orders on them. Mr Darbaydze seemed to remember going to the lawyers' offices for that purpose. 169. According to Mr Darbaydze, at the material time neither the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure nor any regulatory measure governed the procedure to be followed in lodging an appeal against an extradition order. Article 259 § 4 of the above-mentioned Code alluded to it only vaguely (see paragraph 254 below). This loophole had been remedied by the Georgian Supreme Court's case-law in the Aliev case (see paragraph 258 below). 170. Mr Darbaydze stated that, given the lawyers' criticism that neither they nor their clients had been informed of the extradition proceedings and orders, he had contacted Mr Saydayev in December 2002 and had asked him to certify by affidavit that he had indeed gone to the prison on 13 September 2002 and informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings against them. Mr Darbaydze produced the affidavit in question before the Court (see paragraph 196 below). 171. Ms Nadareishvili confirmed that she had been responsible for the extradition case in question within the Procurator-General's Office. On 23 August 2002, together with Mr Darbaydze, she had met five of the applicants in the investigation room of Tbilisi's Prison no. 5. Given those five individuals' refusal to cooperate, she and her colleague had decided against asking that the other applicants be brought to them, as originally planned. Ms Nadareishvili and Mr Darbaydze wished to obtain information about the applicants' dates and places of birth, and their nationalities. They informed the applicants that they were working on the question of their extradition for the Procurator-General's Office and that they were not investigators. The applicants had initially pretended not to speak Russian but had subsequently stated in that language that they did not wish to return to Russia and that some of them had Georgian nationality. This conversation took place without a lawyer or an interpreter. 172. With regard to the fact that her name did not appear in the prison's visitors' log, Ms Nadareishvili claimed not to know the procedure for access to the prison, since she had visited it for the first and last time on 23 August 2002. 173. Mr Mskhiladze, who was Mr Darbaydze's and Ms Nadareishvili's hierarchical superior, explained that the Georgian Procurator-General's Office had not been satisfied with the documents submitted by the Russian authorities in support of the extradition request concerning the applicants; those documents had been handed over during Mr Ustinov's visit to Georgia (see paragraphs 62 and 63 above). Confirming the facts set out in paragraphs 62-64, 67-69 and 71-72 above, Mr Mskhiladze emphasised that the Georgian authorities had asked their Russian counterparts for firm assurances concerning the treatment that would await the applicants in the event of extradition. He pointed out that those had not been general assurances, but individual guarantees in respect of each applicant, cited by name in the relevant letters. Given that the assurances had come from the Russian Procurator-General's Office and that the Office had the role of prosecutor during criminal trials in Russia, the Georgian authorities had every reason to believe that the death penalty would not be sought in respect of the applicants. They had also taken into account that a moratorium on the death penalty had been in force in Russia since 1996 and that the imposition of such a sanction had been prohibited by the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2 February 1999. Beset by “certain doubts”, the Georgian authorities had required the same type of assurance with regard to inhuman or degrading treatment. It was only after it had obtained satisfactory assurances in that respect that the Georgian Procurator-General's Office had begun examining the extradition request. 174. Without denying that the Procurator-General's Office had sent the Russian authorities photographs of the applicants which had been taken in Georgia, Mr Mskhiladze firmly denied that the Russian side had used those photographs in their extradition request or in support of that request. The Russian authorities had indeed submitted the photographs of the applicants which were included with the copies of Form no. 1 (see the footnote on page 12 above). According to Mr Mskhiladze, this was explained by the fact that, at the request of the Ministry of Security's investigation team responsible for examining the illegal border crossing, the Procurator-General's Office had submitted a request for assistance in that criminal case to the Russian authorities, in accordance with the Minsk Convention. The request, accompanied by the applicants' photographs and fingerprints, was intended to identify the persons concerned and had been drawn up at the end of August 2002. Given that the extradition request, supported by photographs of the applicants and other documents, had been submitted on 6 August 2002, Mr Mskhiladze did not believe that the two sets of photographs could be the same. 175. As to the identification of the extradited applicants, Mr Mskhiladze explained that the Russian investigation orders contained their real names and that the applicants themselves had never contested this. They had also been identified by means of identification procedures in Russia, photographs, identity documents and copies of Form no. 1, submitted by the Russian authorities. In addition, according to the Georgian Ministry of Justice, those individuals did not possess, and had never possessed, Georgian nationality. The Ministry for Refugees had also indicated that they were not on the refugee list. Thus, the extradition orders of 2 October 2002 had not resulted from a hasty procedure. For two months, the Procurator-General's Office had meticulously examined the documents showing that the applicants were accused of serious crimes in Russia, were Russian nationals and were protected by firm assurances from the Russian authorities. 176. Mr Mskhiladze considered that the extradition proceedings had been transparent. At his request, trainee prosecutors who were supervised by him had informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings and had obtained information about their nationality. In addition, the applicants had also been kept informed by the media. Mr Mskhiladze stated that the extradited applicants' lawyers had consequently been able to rely on Article 259 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 254 below) and to apply to a court at any stage of the proceedings, especially as such an application would have had a suspensive effect on execution of the extradition orders. However, Mr Mskhiladze accepted that he was unaware of instances in which Article 259 § 4 had been used prior to the Aliev case (see paragraph 258 below). He pointed out that, following the Supreme Court judgment in that case, three applicants had been able to challenge the extradition orders issued against them (see paragraphs 83 and 84 above). 177. With regard to the issue of access to the extradition files, Mr Mskhiladze explained that the applicants' lawyers had asked to inspect the files, but that this had been refused on the ground that the employees of the Procurator-General's Office responsible for the case needed to be able to study these files themselves. In any event, according to Mr Mskhiladze, the lawyers would have been able to consult the files only if they had decided to apply to a court against the extradition proceedings. 178. Mr Mskhiladze stated that at about 1 p.m. on 2 October 2002 he had personally handed over a copy of the extradition orders – issued that day at noon – to the relevant individual in the Ministry of Justice, with a view to their execution. He had also informed Mr Khidjakadze and Mr Gabaydze, the applicants' lawyers, of the orders by telephone (see paragraphs 212 et seq. below). As he was unable to contact Mr Arabidze, he had asked the latter's colleagues to inform him. He had then sent the lawyers a letter containing a copy of the orders. Mr Mskhiladze submitted to the Court a copy of this letter of notification, which also informed the lawyers that they were entitled to apply to a court on behalf of their clients. As he was unable to send the letter by fax on account of electricity problems – a regular occurrence in Georgia – Mr Mskhiladze instructed Mr Darbaydze to leave the letter at the lawyers' offices (see paragraph 168 above). Since the lawyers were absent, Mr Darbaydze handed over the envelope to an office employee. The copy of the letter submitted by Mr Mskhiladze has an almost entirely illegible and faded signature, preceded by the words “I confirm receipt on 2 October 2002”. 179. Mr Mskhiladze categorically dismissed the above-named lawyers' argument that the extradition had taken place in secret. He considered that, since no execution date was indicated on the extradition orders, the lawyers had had sufficient time to apply to a court between 2 and 4 October. 180. As to Mr Aziev's allegedly alarming condition, Mr Mskhiladze did not rule out the possibility that he had been injured during the incident between the prisoners and special troops and that the journalists had not wished to film him at the airport. In any event, Red Cross representatives had visited each applicant at the airport. Russian television had subsequently shown Mr Aziev being admitted to prison. 181. Mr Mskhiladze dismissed Ms Mukhashavria's argument that the applicants' detention had been directly linked to the fact of Mr Ustinov's lodging of an extradition request against them. 182. Mr Gabrichidze said that on 6 August 2002 Mr Ustinov had visited Georgia with his deputy, several employees of the Russian Procurator-General's Office and special guards. The main purpose of his visit had been to discuss the alarming situation prevailing in the Pankisi Gorge, a Georgian valley which bordered Chechnya. On that occasion he submitted the request for extradition of the applicants and certain supporting documents. Mr Gabrichidze had initially refused this request for the reasons set out in paragraphs 62 and 63 above. Mr Ustinov had not contested that decision, but did however ask that the proceedings be expedited. 183. According to Mr Gabrichidze, the extradition proceedings were conducted with maximum transparency, given that they were covered by the media and the Procurator-General's Office organised regular press conferences on the subject. During the proceedings, firm assurances were obtained from the Russian authorities that the death penalty would not be applied and that the extradited individuals would not be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and would receive legal assistance. In addition, account had been taken of the fact that a moratorium on capital punishment had been in force in Russia since 1996 and that the imposition of that penalty was hardly possible since the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2 February 1999. As a Procurator-General himself, Mr Gabrichidze had had no reason to doubt the credibility of guarantees provided by a member State of the Council of Europe. 184. Having concluded that the material in his possession enabled him to consent to the extradition of five applicants, he had contacted his Russian counterpart, asking him to supervise personally the investigation proceedings in Russia and to ensure that those individuals' procedural rights were fully respected. He had even telephoned Mr Fridinskiy, Russian Deputy Prosecutor-General responsible for the North Caucasus area, who had given verbal guarantees and reassured him by referring to the assurances already provided in writing. 185. Once it had been decided to extradite the five applicants, execution of this measure depended only on the arrival of an aeroplane from Russia. Mr Gabrichidze had instructed Mr Mskhiladze to inform the applicants' lawyers of the decision immediately. Once informed, the latter could have challenged the extradition before the courts. However, Mr Gabrichidze noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure contained only one provision on this subject, which was worded in general terms, did not set out either the procedure or the time-limits for lodging an appeal and did not identify the relevant court. He conceded that, given this deficiency in the legislation and the total lack of precedent, the fact that no appeal had been made was not entirely imputable to the lawyers. Between 1996 (the year in which the Minsk Convention came into force in respect of Georgia) and October 2002, there had been no instance in Georgia of a judicial appeal against an extradition order. Mr Gabrichidze stressed the need to reform Georgian legislation in this area. 186. In view of the rumours concerning Mr Aziev's death, Mr Gabrichidze had telephoned his Russian colleagues; Mr Fridinskiy had assured him that the prisoner in question was alive and in good health. He had subsequently called Mr Fridinskiy on a regular basis; the latter had kept him abreast of progress in the proceedings and had gone so far as to provide very detailed information. This had led Mr Gabrichidze to conclude that Mr Fridinskiy was following the case closely and monitoring the applicants' situation, as he had promised. In conclusion, Mr Gabrichidze maintained that, had the Georgian authorities wished to subject the applicants to arbitrary extradition, they would have handed them over on 6 August 2002 to Mr Ustinov, who had been accompanied by a special unit for that very purpose (see paragraph 182 above). (iv) The head investigator in the illegal border-crossing case 187. Mr Bakashvili, an employee of the Ministry of Security, had led a team of investigators in the proceedings against the applicants for crossing the border illegally. He had personally dealt with the cases of Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev, Mr Magomadov, Mr Baymurzayev and Mr Adayev. Of those, only Mr Adayev had been in possession of a Soviet passport; this document stated that he was named Aslan Lechievich Adayev, was a Russian national and had been born on 22 July 1968. The identity of the other applicants listed above had initially been established on the basis of their own statements. Subsequently, a request for assistance in criminal matters was sent to the Russian authorities through the Procurator-General's Office (see paragraph 174 above). The “reports on identification by a third party using photographs”, the statements by the applicants' neighbours and close family, as well as other documents provided by the Russian authorities, had made it possible to establish that Mr Khanoyev was Khanchukayev Aslanbeg Atuyevich, that Mr Mirjoyev was called Gelogayev Ruslan Akhmedovich, that Mr Khashiev was called Mulkoyev Bekkhan Seidkhatanevich, that Mr Usmanov was Magomadov Akhmad Lechievich and that Mr Baymurzayev was named Alkhanov Khusein Movladinevich. 188. With regard to the secrecy surrounding their real identity, the applicants told the investigator they were afraid that their relatives and friends left behind in Chechnya would be persecuted. They had confessed to being armed when they crossed the Georgian border and had cooperated during the investigation. They had not explicitly referred to their fear, but had stated on several occasions that they did not wish to be extradited to Russia. 189. The investigation had been conducted in Chechen with assistance from Mr Saydayev, an interpreter hired from time to time under contract. The applicants all spoke Russian very well and, with the exception of the investigation interviews, had spoken with the investigator in that language. 190. Mr Bakashvili explained that one day he had been in the investigation room in Prison no. 5 with the interpreter and the lawyers for the applicants for whose cases he was responsible. The other investigators from his team were working with other applicants in neighbouring rooms. The interpreter was helping each of the investigators in turn. On leaving the room, he had met Mr Darbaydze, accompanied by a colleague, who had explained to him that a request to extradite the applicants was being examined by the Procurator-General's Office and that he needed to obtain information about their nationality. Mr Bakashvili had replied that it was not his task to instruct the interpreter or the lawyers to assist the prosecutor in that task. He had advised him to make arrangements directly with them. 191. Mr Bakashvili confirmed that, unlike investigators, prosecutors did not require a pass and could enter prisons with their badges. (c) Facts submitted by the interpreter 192. Mr T. Saydayev, a student of international law, confirmed that he had been hired as an interpreter by the Ministry of Security's investigation team. He stated that he had met Mr Darbaydze at Prison no. 5 on only one occasion, namely 13 September 2002 (see paragraph 166 above). On that day, while he was in an investigation room with five or six Chechen prisoners, Mr Darbaydze, accompanied by a female colleague, had informed him that he represented the Procurator-General's Office. He had explained to him in Georgian that this was an extradition case and that he required information about the nationality of the prisoners in question (see paragraph 166 above). Mr Darbaydze had also asked him where he had learned to speak Georgian and Chechen so well. Considering that their conversation so far had been introductory, Mr Saydayev had asked the prosecutor what specifically he wanted interpreted for the prisoners. Mr Darbaydze had then asked him if the applicants were willing to provide the information necessary to establish their nationality. The interpreter had translated this question into Chechen. The prisoners had replied that they refused to provide any information on that subject. Mr Darbaydze had left immediately on hearing the interpretation of that reply. 193. The lawyers had not been present during this discussion and the prosecutor had not held any individual meetings with the applicants. Mr Darbaydze had merely asked Mr Saydayev to put the above question to the prisoners and had left the room following their refusal to answer. He had not handed over any documents. Mr Saydayev had provided Mr Darbaydze with a strictly one-off service on the date in question, one that was not governed by any contractual or friendly relationship. 194. During the investigation, the applicants referred to extradition proceedings several times among themselves, in Chechen; according to Mr Saydayev, the very expression made them afraid. Those discussions had always been marked by doubts and suppositions. At a meeting prior to 13 September 2002, Mr Bakashvili had asked the applicants about their wishes and whether they needed to see a doctor. The applicants had replied that the only thing they wished was not to be extradited. They explained that they watched television in their cell and had heard rumours that they might be extradited to Russia. 195. As regards the affidavit of 6 December 2002 (see paragraph 170 above), Mr Saydayev explained that following their meeting on 13 September 2002, Mr Darbaydze had visited him at home and asked him to swear before a notary that he had met the applicants in Mr Darbaydze's presence and that they had refused to take part in discussions. Mr Darbaydze apparently needed this statement on account of problems with his superiors. 196. In the affidavit in question, entitled “Statement for the Deputy Minister of Justice” and handwritten by Mr Saydayev, he stated: “On 13 September 2002, at Tbilisi Prison no. 5, I assisted investigators from the Ministry of Security as an interpreter in the case of Mr A. Adayev, Mr T. Baymurzayev and other individuals (thirteen persons in total). Once the investigators' work was complete, Mr L. Darbaydze, trainee prosecutor at the Department of International Relations in the Procurator-General's Office, arrived to question the same Chechen prisoners. He first informed them that the question of their extradition was being examined by the Procurator-General's Office and then asked them to provide the necessary explanations in order to establish their nationality. The Chechen prisoners refused, after which Mr Darbaydze drew up a report and submitted it to them for signature. The prisoners refused to sign this document. The prosecutor and the prisoners communicated through me.” 197. Mr Saydayev explained to the Court that Mr Darbaydze had dictated this text to him in the notary's presence. He had been wrong not to pay attention to the sentence about extradition, which had been slipped into the text. Mr Darbaydze had told him that he was merely required to confirm his presence in the prison on 13 September 2002, together with the applicants' refusal to provide information; Mr Saydayev had concentrated on those two points and had neglected the rest of the text, unaware that this would be of importance. 198. In conclusion, Mr Saydayev stressed that Mr Darbaydze had not, with his assistance, informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings on 13 September 2002. (d) Facts submitted by the medical expert 199. Mr K. Akhalkatsishvili went through the reports which he had submitted on 4 October 2002 after examining Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Gelogayev, Mr Khashiev, Mr Issayev and Mr Baymurzayev, applicants, Mr Sheshberidze, a member of the special troops, and Mr Kerdikoshvili, Mr Dalakishvili, Mr Buchukuri, Mr Samadashvili and Mr Kovziridze, prison wardens. He explained that, on the instruction of the Ministry of Justice's Prisons Department, he had also taken into account the observations of the doctor in Prison no. 5 when preparing these reports. 200. It appeared from the reports in question that Mr Khanchukayev was injured on the right side of his body, had numerous bruises on his back and shoulders, measuring 9 x 1 cm, 9 x 4 cm, 6 x 3 cm, 3.5 x 3 cm, 5 x 1 cm, 4.5 x 1 cm, 12 x 1 cm, 12.2 x 1 cm, 10 x 1 cm and 10 x 0.8 cm respectively, five bruises on the face (around the nose and lips) and a bruise on the right knee. Mr Gelogayev had five bruises on his forehead, measuring 2 x 0.5 cm, 1 x 0.1 cm, 0.5 x 0.1 cm, 2.5 x 0.2 cm and 3 x 0.8 cm respectively, a bruise of 3 x 2 cm on the cheek, a bruise measuring 4 x 1.5 cm around the jaw and a bruise of 4 x 3 cm on the right shoulder. Mr Magomadov had a bruise of 3 x 1 cm on the forehead, another measuring 4 x 3 cm on the cheek, a bruise that covered all of one ear, a bruise of 4 x 4 cm on the right temple, bruising around the wrist joints, a bruise of 22 x 2 cm on the left side and a bruise of 5 x 2 cm on the left knee (see the applicants' statements in paragraph 125 above). 201. The injuries sustained by Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Gelogayev and Mr Magomadov resulted from blows inflicted by hard blunt objects and dated from 4 October 2002. They were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to their health. 202. Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev had not made any complaints and had presented no signs of blows or violence. 203. Mr Issayev had a broad haematoma around the right eye and two bruises to the forehead, each of which measured 1 x 1 cm (see paragraph 125 above). These injuries resulted from blows inflicted by hard blunt objects and were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to his health. 204. Mr Kerdikoshvili had a wound of 6 x 0.1 cm on the right shoulder and two wounds, measuring 0.5 x 1 cm and 0.3 x 0.1 cm, around the left wrist. Those injuries resulted from blows inflicted by a sharp object, dated from 4 October 2002 and were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to his health. Mr Sheshberidze apparently suffered pain when walking. He had two bruises, measuring 3 x 2.5 cm and 0.8 x 0.5 cm, on the left ankle, which was also swollen. The joint on Mr Dalakishvili's left knee was swollen and he had a bruise measuring 3 x 2.5 cm. Mr Buchukuri had a bruise measuring 3 x 2 cm on the left ankle and a bruise of 1 x 1 cm on the left testicle. Mr Samadashvili had a bruise measuring 5 x 3 cm on the right side of the chest and another, measuring 1.5 x 1 cm, on the right ankle. Mr Kovziridze had a bruise of 2 x 1.5 cm on the right hand and another measuring 3.5 x 3 cm on the left foot. Those injuries resulted from blows inflicted using hard blunt objects and dated from 4 October 2002. They were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to their health. 205. Mr Dalakishvili submitted to the Court a medical certificate and a statement that he had undergone an operation on the left knee in December 2003 on account of rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. (e) Extracts from the applicants' “prisoner files” 206. At the Court's request, the Georgian Government made available to it in Tbilisi the applicants' prisoner files. The medical information set out below was obtained from this source. 207. It appears from the medical certificate of 6 August 2002, drawn up by the doctor in the Ministry of Security's investigation prison that Mr Khanchukayev was in good health but was suffering from swollen legs. The entry in his medical records on 4 October 2002 mentions numerous bruises, the size of which varied between 1 x 1 cm and 20 x 5 cm, as well as a fracture to the left shoulder. No mention is made of any medical treatment administered to the applicant on that date. The next entry, on 8 October 2002, states that the prison doctor treated Mr Khanchukayev for pain in the pelvis area. According to the entry for 12 October 2002, the applicant was treated by a surgeon. 208. According to medical certificates dated 6 August 2002, Mr Issayev had dressings on the left shoulder and right tibia, injured areas which had required surgical intervention on the previous day. Mr Khashiev showed a deformation of the left side of the lower jaw, together with a scar from an operation dating from a year previously. His legs were also swollen and painful. Mr Baymurzayev also had a deformation of the lower jaw and swelling of the tibias, which was making it difficult for him to walk. It appears from Mr Baymurzayev's file that he received medical treatment from December 2002 onwards for the injury to his jaw and that on 10 October 2003 he was placed in the prison infirmary, as the diagnosis showed a total deformation of the chin bone. 209. It appears that on 7 August 2002, at the Ministry of Security's request, Mr Margoshvili was transferred from a civilian hospital to the prison infirmary. 210. According to a diagnosis drawn up for the Ministry of Security on 7 August 2002 by the civilian hospital in connection with Mr Magomadov's transfer to the prison infirmary, he had an infected wound on the right side of the neck (see paragraph 138 above) and presented numerous grazes on his body. It was recommended that the wound be disinfected and the dressing changed daily or every second day. According to the entry in his medical records on 5 October 2002, treatment had been given for the swelling. 211. The entry in Mr Gelogayev's medical records on 4 October 2002 confirmed the presence of the injuries observed by the medical expert (see paragraph 200 above). No mention is made of any treatment administered to the applicant on that date. On the other hand, according to the entry on 10 October 2002, he had received “symptomatic treatment” and been issued with analgesics. (f) Facts submitted in writing by the applicants' lawyers before the domestic courts 212. As they were unable to appear before the Court in Tbilisi (see paragraph 44 above), on 17 April 2004 Mr Arabidze, Mr Khidjakadze and Mr Gabaydze informed the Court in writing that they had never received a letter from Mr Mskhiladze (see paragraph 178 above). They claimed to have learned of it for the first time in April 2004, once the Court had sent it to the applicants' representatives. 213. As director of the law firm to which the letter in question had allegedly been delivered, Mr Khidjakadze stated that the signature on the document did not belong to any of his colleagues. He noted that the letter bore no registration number, although his firm's practice was to assign a number to each package as soon as it arrived. In his opinion, the document had been fabricated, and was being used by the Government to blame the lawyers for not lodging an appeal against their clients' extradition. The two other lawyers also failed to recognise the signature confirming receipt of the letter. 214. Mr Gabaydze explained that, on the evening of 3 October 2002, a friend who worked at the Ministry of Security (whose name is not disclosed, at the lawyer's request) informed him confidentially that the extradition of “certain Chechens” was being prepared. He then contacted the Chechen representative in Georgia and went with him to the Procurator-General's Office. They attempted unsuccessfully to obtain information. Mr V.M., a prosecutor, informed them by telephone that he was unaware of any such developments and asked them not to call again. Ms L.G., also a prosecutor, told them that she could say nothing over the telephone. 215. Those attempts having been unsuccessful, Mr Gabaydze went to the Rustavi-2 television channel, in order to state publicly that the secret extradition of Chechen prisoners was being planned (see paragraph 124 above). At 9 a.m. the following day, he went to the prison to try to meet his clients, but the prison doors were closed and the telephones had been disconnected. At that stage he did not know which of his clients were affected or whether the extradition had already taken place. 216. The video recording of the 11 p.m. news bulletin broadcast on Rustavi-2 on 3 October 2002 and made available to the Court by the Georgian Government did indeed contain an interview with Mr Gabaydze. The lawyer stated that, according to a reliable source, the extradition of several Chechen prisoners, arrested between 3 and 5 August on the Russo-Georgian border, was planned for the following day. He claimed that he did not know those prisoners' names, that the telephones at the Procurator-General's Office had been disconnected and that the entire proceedings were taking place in secret. However, he did not believe that the individuals with Georgian nationality would be extradited. 217. On 15 November 2002 the investigator responsible for “particularly important” cases issued an order in respect of each of the applicants concerning the “establishment of the defendant's identity”. The orders in question, which were all identically worded, noted that “documents, particularly passports, were received during the investigation” which proved that the defendants in question were Aslan Lechievich Adayev, born on 22 July 1968 in the village of Orekhovo (Achkhoy-Martan district); Khusein Mukhidovich Aziev, born on 28 September 1973 in the village of Roshni-Chu (Urus-Martan district); Rizvan Vakhidovich Vissitov, born on 1 October 1977 in the village of Goiti (Urus-Martan district); Khusein Khamitovich Khadjiev, born on 8 November 1975 in the village of Samashki (Achkhoy-Martan district) (see paragraph 72 above). “This information was also confirmed by the defendants themselves, and by other material from the case file.” The Russian Government did not submit the equivalent document concerning Mr Shamayev, one of the five extradited applicants. He was referred to in all the documents as Abdul-Vakhab Akhmedovich Shamayev. 218. On 11 November 2002 the Russian Government submitted to the Court the names of the lawyers who were representing the extradited applicants before the Russian courts. Following repeated requests from the Court, they also sent their addresses on 19 November 2002. On 22 January 2003, claiming that the lawyers enjoyed unlimited access to their clients, the Government provided details of the dates and number of meetings between them. 219. The case file shows that, on 15 November 2002, Mr Shamayev refused the assistance of Mr Zalugin, who had been assigned to him on 5 October 2002, and asked that “any other lawyer” be appointed. This handwritten request by Mr Shamayev is included in the case file. On the same date Ms Kuchinskaya was assigned to his case by virtue of a mission order issued by the head of the Minvody legal consultancy office. From 21 February 2003 Mr Shamayev was assisted by another lawyer, Mr Timirgayev, a member of the Bar of the Chechen Republic. 220. On 5 October 2002 the heads of the legal consultancy offices in Minvody and Essentuki assigned Ms Melnikova and Mr Molochkov to represent Mr Khadjiev and Mr Vissitov respectively during the preliminary investigation. On 15 November 2002 Mr Khadjiev asked that, in view of Ms Melnikova's long absence, “any other lawyer be assigned to him”. On the same date the head of the Minvody legal consultancy office assigned Ms Kuchinskaya to represent him. 221. On 5 October 2002 Mr Zalugin was assigned to represent Mr Adayev during the investigation. On 22 October 2002 Mr Adayev refused his assistance and asked that “any other lawyer” be appointed. On 16 and 21 October 2002 Mr Adayev's relatives chose Mr Lebedev (a member of the Moscow Bar from the Novatsia law firm) and Mr Khorochev (from Isk, an association of lawyers in the Odintsovo district, Moscow region) to defend his interests. Only Mr Lebedev's authority to act, approved by the director of Novatsia, is included in the case file. 222. On 5 October 2002 the head of the legal consultancy office in Essentuki assigned Mr Molochkov to represent Mr Aziev before the Procurator-General's Office. Another authority to act was drawn up on 21 October 2002 in the name of Mr Khorochev. Since 31 January 2003 Mr Aziev has been assisted by Mr Timichev, a member of the Bar of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria (see paragraph 238 below). 223. Until 4 October 2002 Mr Khadjiev, Mr Adayev and Mr Aziev were represented before the Georgian courts by Mr Gabaydze; Mr Vissitov was represented by Mr Khidjakadze; and Mr Shamayev by Mr Chkhatarashvili. Those lawyers were remunerated by the leadership of the Chechen-Kist community in Georgia (under contracts for legal assistance dated 5 and 6 August 2002). 224. The lawyers stated that, at 9 a.m. on 4 October 2002, they rushed to the prison to see their clients, but were refused entry. “Not knowing how to apply to the Court”, they asked their colleagues, Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili, to lodge an application on behalf of their clients. Those lawyers were also denied access to the prisoners and could not therefore arrange to have authorities to act drawn up in their names. In extremely urgent circumstances, and in agreement with the leadership of the Chechen-Kist community, Mr Gabaydze, Mr Khidjakadze and Mr Chkhatarashvili prepared documents (included in the case file) delegating authority to their two colleagues, who immediately applied to the Court. 225. On 22 November 2002 Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili faxed the powers of attorney authorising them to represent the extradited applicants before the Court. Those documents, which referred to Georgia as the respondent State, had been signed by the applicants' family members and friends living in Russia. 226. The lawyers explained that on 28 October 2002 they had contacted the Russian consulate in Tbilisi in order to obtain visas so that they could visit their extradited clients. They were informed orally that, in order to obtain a visa, they would have to produce a written invitation from the prison establishment in question. On 29 October 2002 they asked the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court for assistance. He explained that he would not reply without some indication from the Court. The lawyers then asked the Court to intervene on their behalf with the Russian authorities so that visas would be issued. 227. On 5 December 2002 the Russian Government alleged that Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili could not claim to be the representatives of the extradited applicants with regard to the part of the application against Russia, as the authorities to act referred only to Georgia as the respondent State. In addition, under Russian legislation a foreign lawyer could not defend an individual in Russia, either during the preparatory investigation or before the courts. However, “if they were to contact the Russian Procurator-General's Office”, the lawyers “[could] in principle visit the extradited applicants”. “Those alleged representatives ... who [supported] international terrorists in Russia [were] not considered by the Russian authorities as the applicants' representatives before the Court and [would] not be contacted by them in that capacity.” 228. On 17 June 2003 the Court decided to ask the Russian Government, in application of Rule 39 (of the Rules of Court), to allow Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili unhindered access to the extradited applicants with a view to preparing the hearing on admissibility (see paragraph 24 above). On 4 August 2003 Ms Mukhashavria asked the Representative of the Russian Federation, by virtue of this decision by the Court, to help her obtain a visa for Russia and authorisation to visit the applicants in prison. In a reply dated 21 August 2003, the Representative of the Russian Federation reminded her, through the Court, that the Russian Government did not consider her as the extradited applicants' representative. He stated that the Georgian lawyers could ask the trial court before which the applicants would be brought to authorise their admission as defence counsel, but that the Government themselves could take no action in this regard. 229. On 22 August 2003 the Court again invited the Russian Government to comply with the interim measure indicated on 17 June 2003. On 1 September 2003 the Government repeated the grounds for their refusal as set out in the above-mentioned letter of 21 August. 230. At the hearing on admissibility the Russian Government submitted a graphology report of 29 August 2003 by the forensic analysis centre at the Russian Ministry of Justice. The expert who had prepared the report claimed that the authorities to act in respect of Mr Shamayev, Mr Adayev and Mr Aziev, submitted to the Court by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili, had not been signed by those applicants (see paragraph 225 above). In the case of Mr Vissitov, it had not been possible to ascertain whether the signature was indeed his, and it had been impossible to decide the question with regard to Mr Khadjiev, since the analysed specimen had been very short and incomplete. 231. In reply, Ms Mukhashavria pointed out that those applicants had been extradited before their lawyers could obtain authorisation to visit them. After their arrival in Russia, she had attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with them. She had then appealed to their relatives and friends, and it was the latter's signatures which appeared on the authorities to act. 232. On 20 November 2002 the Registry of the Court informed Mr Molochkov, Ms Kuchinskaya, Mr Khorochev and Mr Lebedev (see paragraphs 218‑22 above) that their clients had attempted to lodge an application with the Court on 4 October 2002. They were asked to make contact with the applicants so that they could confirm or deny their intention to apply to the Court. On 9 December 2002 the Representative of the Russian Federation replied to the Court, stating that the lawyers “objected to the Court's attempts to contact them”. Indeed, Mr Khorochev and Mr Lebedev never sent a reply. Mr Molochkov and Ms Kuchinskaya replied only in August 2003 (see paragraph 241 below). 233. Consequently, and in accordance with the authorisation granted by the President of the Section (see paragraph 16 above), on 10 December 2002 the Registry sent identical letters (by registered mail requiring acknowledgment of receipt), accompanied by application forms, directly to the extradited applicants at the address of the pre-trial detention centre in town A. On 16 January 2003 the Court received the five acknowledgments of receipt, signed on 24 December 2002 by the head of the prison secretariat. In September 2003 the Russian Government produced a statement, delivered on an undetermined date by the head of the prison administration of the pre-trial detention centre in question, stating that no letters from the Court to the extradited applicants had arrived at that establishment. Following the Court's communication of the above-mentioned acknowledgments of receipt, the Russian Government provided other explanations (see paragraph 239 below). 234. Mr Shamayev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev never replied to the Court to confirm or deny their intention of applying to the Court as expressed on 4 October 2002. 235. On 27 October 2003 the Court received an application form from Mr Khusein Khamitovich Khadjiev, duly completed and dated 8 October 2003, which named both Georgia and Russia as the respondent States. It had been posted on 9 October 2003 by the administration of the pre-trial detention centre in town B (see paragraph 53 above). Mr Khadjiev provided an authority to act made out in the name of Mr S. Kotov, a lawyer. Although the relevant box on this document referred only to Georgia as the respondent State, the form contained complaints against both Georgia and Russia (see paragraphs 388, 439 and 484 below). 236. On 19 December 2003 those documents were sent to the Governments and to Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili. Mr Kotov was asked to provide certain additional information, particularly with regard to his client's application to the Court on the evening of his extradition and his representation before the Court by the Georgian lawyers. He was also asked to specify who would represent his client before the Court with regard to the part of the application concerning Russia. 237. To date, no reply has been received by the Court from Mr Kotov. 238. Mr Khusein Mukhidovich Aziev, one of the five extradited applicants, did not return the application form sent to him by the Court on 10 December 2002. On the other hand, on 19 August 2003 he lodged a separate application with the Court, referring only to Russia (Aziev v. Russia, no. 28861/03). Represented by Mr Timichev (see paragraph 222 above), he complained of the impossibility of being tried by a competent court in Russia and about the conduct of the Russian lawyer who had been assigned to him after his illegal extradition to that country. Having initially made no reference to any application in connection with his extradition, it was not until 9 October 2003 that Mr Aziev confirmed that he had submitted such a complaint to the Court and asked that case no. 28861/03 be joined to the present application. In a letter of 30 October 2003, sent to the Court in connection with application no. 28861/03, he confirmed that he had learned from his lawyer and the media that the Russian Government were denying that he had applied to the Court from Georgia, with Ms Mukhashavria's assistance, in order to complain about his illegal extradition. He stated that he endorsed all the steps taken by that lawyer, even if it had not always been possible to take his instructions. 239. On 3 December 2003 the Russian Government explained the misunderstanding over the receipt by the extradited applicants of letters from the Court. They alleged that the letters had been delivered to the applicants in person, and had been left with them rather than being included in their prisoner files. The absence of any record in those files lay behind the statement made by the head of the prison administration to the effect that the prison had never received the correspondence in question (see paragraph 233 above). The Government submitted reports on the administrative inquires subsequently conducted into this matter in the pre-trial detention centre and handwritten letters from Mr Shamayev, Mr Adayev, Mr Khadjiev and Mr Vissitov, dated 3 November 2003. 240. In those letters Mr Shamayev stated that he had received the Court's correspondence but had not replied in person. However, he did not rule out the possibility that his lawyer had sent a complaint to the Court on his behalf. Mr Adayev confirmed that he had received the Court's correspondence at the end of 2002 and that he had handed it over to his lawyers for them to reply. He also stated that he had sent a complaint to the Court from Georgia with the help of a lawyer. Mr Khadjiev stated that, while in Georgia, he had sent a complaint to the Court with the assistance of a lawyer. On 24 December 2002 he had received the Court's letter in the pre-trial detention centre in Russia. Mr Vissitov alleged that he had sent a complaint to the Court from Georgia, with the help of a lawyer. He had subsequently received a letter from the Court in Russia, but had lost it during a change of cell. No letter was submitted from Mr Aziev. However, the Government submitted an explanation from an employee in the SIZO administration for the Stavropol region, stating that Mr Aziev, who had been questioned on 3 November 2003, had confirmed that he had received a letter from the Court at the end of 2002. Unlike the other applicants, Mr Aziev had not written an explanatory letter since he did not speak Russian well and did not write in that language. 241. On 26 August 2003 Mr Molochkov and Ms Kuchinskaya replied to the Court's letter of 20 November 2002 (see paragraph 232 above). They alleged that Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Aziev, their former clients, had never complained of a violation of their rights and had never expressed a wish to apply to the Court. Having received no instructions from them, they had been unable to contact the Court on their own initiative. They had always had adequate time and facilities to prepare their clients' defence and opportunities to meet them without prison wardens being present. 242. On 15 September 2003 the Russian Government produced photographs of four of the extradited applicants, taken in their respective cells in the pre-trial detention centre in town B, and a photograph of Mr Aziev, dated 23 August 2003, who was then detained in a pre-trial detention centre in town A (see paragraph 53 above). Unlike the other applicants, Mr Aziev appears in only one photograph and is shown from a distance in a general shot of his cell. Apart from the observation that the conditions of detention seemed to be better in the first SIZO mentioned above, the photographs of the cells included with this submission gave rise to no particular comments from the Court. 243. On 8 January 2004 the Russian Government alleged that Mr Khadjiev's submission of a complaint to the Court (see paragraph 235 above) marked a turning point in the instant case and was a breakthrough in the procedural impasse. They had no doubt that Mr Khadjiev had indeed applied to the Court on this occasion and claimed that there was consequently no further point in considering the alleged communications which had previously been sent by him to the Court or those sent on behalf of the four other extradited individuals. The Russian Government stated that they recognised the authority to act given by Mr Khadjiev to Mr Kotov in his application against Georgia. They requested that this application be subject to the “ordinary procedure” and be communicated to them, and that all of the previous proceedings in the instant case be annulled. In their opinion, this would put an end to “non-procedural activities in this case”. On 5 and 13 February 2004 the Court reminded the Government that Mr Khadjiev's complaints had been communicated to the respondent Governments prior to consideration of their admissibility and that they did not require any fresh communication measure. 244. With regard to its attempts to question the five extradited applicants and the two applicants who disappeared in Tbilisi and are now detained in Russia, the Court refers to paragraphs 27 et seq. above. 245. According to the medical department of the Georgian Ministry of Justice, the applicants presented no injuries on 4 October 2002. 246. On 14 November 2002, in conditions of strict confidentiality, the Russian Government produced medical certificates drawn up on 4 November 2002, a month after their extradition. According to the prison doctor, the applicants had made “no complaints about their state of health and were, in general, in good condition”. On 22 January 2003 the Government submitted new medical certificates, dated 15 January 2003 and signed by a cardiologist, a neurologist, a generalist and a surgeon. On 1 September 2003 they submitted further medical certificates, drawn up on 11 August 2003. The most recent medical certificates, submitted on 25 February 2004, were dated 20 February 2004 and were drawn up by doctors from the civilian hospital in town B, in the Stavropol region. 247. According to the medical certificates dated 4 November 2002 and 15 January 2003, Mr Vissitov had complained of a dryness of the throat and a dry cough. His condition was described as “objectively satisfactory”. Monitoring by the medical service was recommended. According to the medical certificate of 11 August 2003, Mr Vissitov had made no complaint concerning his state of health and did not present any physical injury. He had a cataract on the left eye and a fracture of the nose bone was noted in July 2003. A psychiatric examination on 13 February 2003 found that he was in good psychological health. X-rays taken on 18 October 2002 and 24 July 2003 showed no chest pathology. At no point during his detention had Mr Vissitov requested medical assistance. According to a medical certificate dated 20 February 2004, the generalist found evidence of dystonia. 248. On 15 January 2003 it was noted that Mr Khadjiev had been ill for two days. He complained of hot flushes, a cough and shivering. The doctor observed increased vesicular murmurs in the lungs, an acute viral respiratory infection complicated by tracheobronchitis, and possible pneumonia of the right side. His state was described as “objectively satisfactory”. Treatment in the medical unit was considered necessary. 249. The medical certificate of 11 August 2003 mentions old traces of a fracture of the nose bone, an appendectomy in 1998, and a gunshot wound to the right hip dating from July 2002. A psychiatric examination on 13 February 2003 found that he was in good psychological health. X-rays of 18 October 2002 and 24 July 2003 showed no chest pathology. Mr Khadjiev requested medical treatment on 20 February (for an acute viral respiratory infection) and 3 April 2003 (for acute laryngitis). He had made no other requests for medical assistance. According to the medical certificate of 20 February 2004, the generalist found evidence of dystonia and cephalalgia. 250. According to the medical certificates dated 4 November 2002 and 15 January 2003, Mr Shamayev complained of general weakness, acute pain in the hips, dryness of the throat and mouth, and a dry cough. A week prior to 15 January 2003 he had suffered an acute viral respiratory infection. Normal vesicular murmurs in the lungs and chronic cholecystitis (inflammation of the gall-bladder) in remission were observed. His condition was described as “objectively satisfactory”. According to the medical certificate of 11 August 2003, Mr Shamayev made no complaint about his state of health. His medical records revealed bruising to the left shoulder. A psychiatric examination on 13 February 2003 found him to be in good psychological health. X-rays dated 18 October 2002 and 24 July 2003 showed no chest pathology. Mr Shamayev had not asked for medical assistance at any point during his detention. According to the medical certificate of 20 February 2004, the generalist found hypotonic dyskinesia of the digestive tract. 251. According to the medical certificates dated 4 November 2002 and 15 January 2003, Mr Adayev had made no complaint about his state of health. His condition was described as “objectively satisfactory”. The medical certificate dated 11 August 2003 mentions pale pink bruising on the chest, a gunshot wound to the left shoulder dating from 1994 and a traumatism on the coccyx dating from 1986. A psychiatric examination on 13 February 2003 found him to be in good psychological health. X-rays taken on 13 March and 24 July 2003 showed no chest pathology. On 9 December 2002 Mr Adayev was examined by a doctor following an episode of hypertension and post-traumatic neuritis of the left shoulder. He received medical treatment on 21 February and 17 March 2003. 252. According to the medical certificates dated 4 November 2002, 15 January and 11 August 2003, Mr Aziev had made no complaints about his health. His condition was described as “objectively satisfactory”. Mr Aziev had not asked for medical assistance at any point during his detention. On 20 February 2004 the generalist found no evidence of any pathology.

5. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the vicinity of Gradiška. 6. On 8 May 1992 she married Z.G. The couple had two children, a daughter born in 1992 (“A”) and a son born in 1994 (“B”). 7. Following an alleged episode of domestic violence, in the beginning of 2001 the applicant left her husband. She succeeded in taking A whereas Z.G. kept B. 8. On 15 May 2001 the applicant requested the Social Work Centre in Gradiška (“Social Work Centre”) to award her custody of the children, pending the resolution of attempts at reconciliation. The Social Work Centre did not decide upon this request until 28 February 2003 (see paragraph 11 below). 9. On 30 May 2002 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Gradiška Court of First Instance seeking a divorce from Z.G. and custody of the children. On 23 December 2002 she sought interim measures in respect of custody, but she did not receive any response in this connection. 10. In a judgment of 19 February 2003, the Gradiška Court of First Instance granted the applicant a divorce and awarded her custody of A and B. Z.G. appealed. 11. On 28 February 2003 the Social Work Centre granted the applicant provisional custody of A and B pending the entry into force of the judgment of 19 February 2003. It relied on section 91(1) of the Family Act 1979 which was no longer in force (see paragraph 40 below). The decision was immediately enforceable. 12. On 12 March 2003 the applicant initiated proceedings for the enforcement of the decision of 28 February 2003. On 18 March 2003 the Social Work Centre forwarded the decision to the Department for General Administration (Odjeljenje za opštu upravu; another municipal body) for enforcement. Following a lengthy exchange of letters with the Social Work Centre and an initial refusal to enforce the decision, on 30 July 2003 the Department for General Administration accepted to enforce it. 13. On 28 April 2003 the applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber, a domestic human-rights body (case no. CH/03/14055). 14. On 18 August and 26 September 2003 the Department for General Administration carried out two unsuccessful attempts to enforce the decision of 28 February 2003. 15. On 6 November 2003 the Human Rights Chamber found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision reads, in the relevant part, as follows: “64. The Chamber finds in these circumstances that the proceedings failed to meet the standard of speed and efficiency required under Article 8 of the Convention in order to secure the applicant's right to respect for her family life. The Chamber emphasises that it is essential in this field, if the family life of parents and children is to be respected, that the remedies available and the system for enforcing them should be clearly established by law, that the authorities involved should be properly aware of the law and that they should avoid undue delay and in particular deal promptly with appeals and other requests which come before them and respect applicable time limits. It is particularly unacceptable that family life should be jeopardised by interdepartmental disputes over administrative responsibilities, as has occurred here. ... 69. ... Since the applicant's rights have been violated by inter alia the fact that the decision of the Social Work Centre granting her provisional custody of the children has not been enforced yet, the Chamber considers it appropriate to order the respondent Party to take all necessary steps to execute the decision of the Social Work Centre, as soon as possible but in no case later than 5 January 2004.” The decision, in the operative provisions, ordered the Republika Srpska “to take all necessary steps through its authorities, to promptly execute the decision of the Social Work Centre, in any event no later than 5 January 2004” and “to pay to the applicant, by 5 January 2004, 2,500 Bosnian markas [the equivalent of 1,280 euros] by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damages”. The decision was read out at a public hearing on 5 December 2003. Having been taken by the full Chamber, it entered into force immediately. 16. On 18 December 2003 the Department for General Administration handed over B to the applicant. On the next day Z.G. abducted B. 17. On 22 December 2003 the applicant sought from the Department for General Administration that the decision of 28 February 2003 be enforced anew. On the same day she submitted a criminal complaint against Z.G. 18. On 16 January 2004 the Department for General Administration concluded that the decision of 28 February 2003 had been enforced and terminated the enforcement proceedings. On 17 March 2004 the competent Ministry upheld the first-instance decision of 16 January 2004. It would appear that the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska has not yet examined an application for judicial review submitted by the applicant. 19. On 12 March 2004 the Republika Srpska paid the damages awarded by the Human Rights Chamber. 20. On 23 April 2004 the competent public prosecutor, having been satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that Z.G. had committed child abduction, filed with the Gradiška Court of First Instance an indictment for confirmation. On 20 May 2004 the Gradiška Court of First Instance confirmed the indictment. Following an initial appearance of Z.G, no further steps were taken prior to the death of Z.G. on 14 January 2006. 21. On 7 September 2004 the judgment of 19 February 2003 entered into force having been upheld by the Banja Luka District Court. The provisional decision of 28 February 2003 thereby ceased to have effect. 22. On 14 January 2006 Z.G. died. B remained with D.B., his paternal grandmother. 23. On 16 January 2006 the applicant addressed again the Social Work Centre seeking the return of B. 24. On 1 February 2006 B objected to being returned and the Social Work Centre decided not to use coercion. 25. On 27 February 2006 the Social Work Centre decided not to award custody of B to D.B. On 3 April 2006 the competent Ministry upheld the first-instance decision of 27 February 2006. 26. On 2 March 2006 the Social Work Centre unsuccessfully attempted to persuade D.B. to facilitate the return of B. According to the minutes of the meeting, D.B. expressed, in the presence of B, her disgust for the applicant and for the fact that she lived in the countryside. D.B. was described as manipulative, possessive, authoritarian and aggressive. 27. On 20 March 2006 a social worker submitted her expert opinion to the Social Work Centre. It stated that Z.G. had hindered B from seeing the applicant to the end of his life by, for example, threatening school teachers who tolerated his occasional meetings with the applicant at the school premises. The separation, coupled with Z.G.'s regular attempts to instil into B negative feelings towards the applicant, led to B becoming estranged from the applicant. The report concluded that the return of B would nevertheless be in B's best interests. 28. On 31 March 2006 the Gradiška Minor Offences Court convicted D.B. of subjecting B to psychological violence and ordered the Social Work Centre to secure the prompt return of B with police assistance if necessary. The decision was immediately enforceable. 29. On 4 April 2006 the Social Work Centre obtained another expert opinion recommending the prompt return of B. 30. On 11 April 2006 the Banja Luka District Court upheld the decision of 31 March 2006. 31. On 25 April 2006 B again objected to being returned. 32. On 11 May 2006 the local police refused to provide assistance to the Social Work Centre. 33. On 12 May 2006 B once again objected to being returned. 34. On 14 June 2006 the Social Work Centre closed the case and instructed the applicant to initiate proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of 19 February 2003 before the competent court. The applicant appealed insisting that the Social Work Centre secure the return of her son. On 10 July 2006 the competent Ministry upheld the first-instance decision of 14 June 2006. On 22 February 2007 the Banja Luka District Court, upon an application for judicial review, upheld the second-instance decision of 10 July 2006. 35. On 7 August 2006 the Social Work Centre informed the Gradiška Minor Offences Court that it was unable to enforce the decision of 31 March 2006 because of the lack of necessary secondary legislation. 36. On 22 August 2006 the applicant applied to the Gradiška Court of First Instance for the decision of 31 March 2006 to be enforced. The Gradiška Court of First Instance initially issued an execution writ (on 8 September 2006), but it subsequently decided (on 10 January 2007) that the applicant should have sought from the Social Work Centre that the impugned decision be enforced. The Gradiška Court of First Instance accordingly quashed the execution writ of 8 September 2006. 37. On 29 September 2006 B again objected to being returned, but continued to occasionally meet with the applicant at the school premises (on 26 October, 6 November and 19 December 2006). 38. On 22 January 2007 the Social Work Centre returned B to the applicant.

6. The applicants were born in 1964 and 1963 respectively and live in Vladivostok, Russia. At the material time the first applicant, a police officer, and the second applicant, a former police officer, were the chairman and the deputy chairman of a local police trade union. 7. On 28 October 1999, in connection with the discovery of two explosive devices and cartridges at the home of a third person, K., the department of the interior of the Primorskiy region and the Federal Security Service of Russia (“the FSB”) initiated criminal proceedings under Article 222 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Russia (“unlawful acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation and carrying of firearms, basic parts of firearms, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices”). 8. On 14 January 2000 the applicants were arrested. On 17 January 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy region extended the applicants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges against them and the risk of their absconding from the authorities or obstructing the course of justice. 9. On 24 January 2000 the applicants were transferred to detention centre IZ-25/1 (“the detention centre” – in some of the documents submitted also referred to as IZ-20/1) in Vladivostok. 10. On 13 March 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy region extended the applicants’ detention until 10 April 2000, referring to the same reasons, namely the risk of their absconding from the authorities or obstructing the course of justice. 11. On 3 April 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy region extended the applicants’ detention until 10 May 2000. The first applicant’s lawyer appealed against the extension order. On 28 April 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the appeal and stated that the applicant had the right to appeal against that decision to the Primorskiy Regional Court. The first applicant did not appeal to the second-instance court. 12. On 27 April 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy region extended the applicants’ detention until 10 July 2000, referring to the gravity of the charges against them and the risk of their absconding from the authorities or obstructing the course of justice. 13. On 10 July 2000 the investigation forwarded the criminal case against the applicants to the Primorskiy Regional Court for the determination of the jurisdiction for the trial. On 13 July 2000 the Regional Court decided that the case should be examined by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok (“the District Court”) and forwarded the case file to the District Court. 14. On 8 August 2000 the District Court held a directions hearing and decided to examine the criminal case on 11 October 2000. The court also decided to extend the applicants’ detention on remand, using a summary formula in respect of both applicants and stating that “the preventive measure in respect of [the applicants] should remain the same – detention on remand”. No reasons for the extension of the applicants’ detention on remand were provided. 15. On 11 October 2000, during the examination of the applicants’ case, the court allowed an application by them for an additional expert assessment of fingerprints. The court forwarded the case file to Moscow for the expert assessment and adjourned the hearing of the criminal case. During the hearing the applicants complained under Article 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (lodging applications before the court) to the District Court about the length of their detention on remand and requested to be released pending trial. The applicants stated that they had permanent places of residence; that they had the necessary communication equipment to ensure constant contact with the authorities; that they had always been given positive assessments; that they had received State military awards; that they had minor children; and that they both had kidney diseases, treatment for which was not available at the detention centre. Their complaint was included in the case file (pages 497-499), but was not examined by the court. 16. On 29 October 2000 the first applicant complained to the District Court, stating, among other things, that he had spent more than ten months in detention and requesting release pending trial. This complaint was not examined by the court. 17. On 30 October 2000 the second applicant complained to the District Court and requested to be released pending trial. He stated that he had two minor children, that he had never been prosecuted, that he had a permanent place of residence and that he had no intention of absconding from the authorities. This complaint was not examined by the court. 18. On 10 November 2000 the first applicant complained to the Prosecutor General. In his letter he stated, among other things, that he had been detained for more than ten months and that his requests for release pending trial had not been examined. This complaint was not examined by the authorities. 19. On 16 November 2000 and 12 December 2000 the second applicant complained to the District Court that his detention was unlawful and requested to be released pending trial. In his letter he pointed out that he had problems with his teeth and that adequate dental treatment was not available in the detention centre; that he had a permanent place of residence; that he had two children and an elderly mother to take care of; and that he had no intention of absconding from the authorities. These complaints were not examined by the court. 20. On 3 January 2001 the first applicant complained to the District Court, requesting it to examine the lawfulness of his detention on remand. Referring to the poor conditions of his detention, the general deterioration of his health and the lack of medical assistance in the centre, the applicant requested to be released pending trial. In his complaint the applicant stated that he had family and a child to take care of; that he had a permanent place of residence; that he had been working as a police officer for 15 years; that he had been given positive assessments; and that he had no intention of absconding from the authorities. This complaint was not examined by the court. 21. On 3 January 2001 the second applicant complained to the District Court that his detention on remand was unlawful and requested to be released pending trial. In his letter he pointed out that he had lost several teeth and had other problems with his health, and that no medical assistance had been provided to him in the detention centre. 22. On 12 January 2001 the District Court responded to the second applicant. The letter was very brief and did not contain any judicial decisions. It stated: “Today the court sees no reasons for changing the preventive measure”. 23. On 23 January 2001 and 20 February 2001 the second applicant complained to the District Court that his detention on remand was unlawful and requested to be released pending trial. In his letters he stated, among other things, that he had lost eight teeth; that he had problems with his kidneys; that no treatment was available in the detention centre; that he had a permanent place of residence; that he had two children and an elderly mother to take care of; and that he had no intention of absconding from the authorities. These complaints were not examined by the court. 24. On 31 January 2001, upon completion of the expert assessment, the case file was returned to the District Court and the hearing of the case was scheduled for 20 February 2001. 25. On 20 February 2001 the District Court resumed the hearing of the criminal case. It completed its examination on 2 March 2001, imposing suspended sentences on the applicants and ordering their immediate release. 26. From 24 January 2000 until their release on 2 March 2001 the applicants were detained in cells no. 41, 58, 79, 82 and 105 in the detention centre. 27. All the cells in which the applicants were detained were of identical size, measuring 7.5 sq. m by 2.6 sq. m with four bunks. Both applicants shared their cells with four to six other detainees; therefore, they had to take turns to sleep and were allowed to sleep only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The applicants and their cellmates were not provided with bedding or linen; they had to acquire these items from their relatives and wash and dry them in the cells. 28. The cells were damp; there was mould on the walls and the ceiling. The air was stale and musty. As there was no air ventilation, the cells were hot in summer and cold in winter; the temperature in the cells depended on the season and varied from +10ºC to +35ºC. The windows of the cells were covered with metal grilles supplemented with “eyelashes”, that is, metal strips covering the grille, which let no daylight in. The size of the air vents above the doors was 0.06 sq. m; therefore they could not provide fresh air. The cells were constantly lit with a single 60-watt bulb. Unprotected electric wiring hung from the ceiling and along the walls. The cells were overrun with cockroaches, blood-sucking insects and mice, but the authorities made no attempt to exterminate them, refusing even to give the inmates chloride for disinfection. The cells were not equipped with a source of drinking water. The inmates had to drink water from the tap above the toilet, which was supposed to be used only for flushing. 29. The cells were equipped with toilets which were located 0.5 m away from the dining table and were not isolated from the living area as the centre’s administration forbade putting up curtains. 30. Despite numerous requests by the applicants, they were never provided with bedding, crockery or kitchenware. They were also denied any toiletries, such as soap, toothbrushes, a shaving set or toilet paper, to maintain personal hygiene. In the applicants’ submission, they were able to have a shower only once every 10 to 40 days for up to 12 minutes, and to take a walk of about 50 minutes per day. The duration of walks was sometimes reduced to 20 to 30 minutes. On several occasions, the warders made the applicants choose between having a bath and taking a walk. If the applicants were in a meeting with their lawyers or in court, then they did not get to take the walk. The scarce meals were of very poor quality. 31. The applicants, who suffered from toothache and urolithiasis, were denied proper medical treatment, reference being made to “the absence of specialists and necessary medicine”. In response to the first applicant’s complaints of renal colic, a medical officer supplied him with medicine which was unfit for use, as its shelf life had expired three years earlier. With regard to the second applicant’s complaint of acute colic, the medical officer refused to give him an injection with the medicine and syringes that had been delivered earlier by the applicant’s family. The officer stated that he only used syringes for treatment of seriously ill patients, but he could see no such patients at the moment. The available dental care was provided by a doctor who saw patients only once a week. In response to the applicants’ complaints of acute toothache he suggested that the teeth be extracted without an anaesthetic owing to the lack of medication and necessary equipment for the treatment of cavities. 32. The applicants supported their submission with a number of documents, including eight responses by the administration of detention centre IZ-25/1 to their requests for information lodged in 2006: five responses dated 19 April 2006 (two responses concerning the ventilation of the cells, one response concerning the metal bars on the cells’ windows, one response concerning the control over the sanitary conditions in the cells and one response concerning the absence of the licence to practice medicine by the medical unit of the detention centre at the material time), one response dated 26 July 2006 (the refusal to provide the information concerning the provision of the applicants with individual toiletry kits owing to the absence of the archives), one response dated 18 August 2006 (the refusal to provide information concerning the daily number of inmates in cell no. 79 and their transfers to other cells) and one response dated 22 August 2006 (the refusal to provide information concerning the daily number of inmates in cell no. 41 and their transfers to other cells); the Recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning its visit to the detention facility from 2 to 17 December 2001; three witness statements concerning the conditions of the applicants’ detention in the detention centre provided by Mr A.V. on 7 August 2006, Mr O.L. on 2 August 2006 and Mr E.K. on 3 August 2006; and six statements describing the conditions of detention and the lack of medical assistance in IZ-25/1, drawn up by the applicants and their cellmates, dated 6 and 7 November 2000, 4, 5 and 23 December 2000 and 2 February 2001. The applicants did not submit any medical documents concerning their respective conditions, whether produced during their detention in IZ-25/1 or after their release. 33. Referring to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government submitted that the applicants had been detained in cells used for the detention of former employees of law-enforcement agencies. 34. Referring to the information provided by the Russian Federal Service for Execution of Sentences, the Government submitted that the first applicant had been detained in cell no. 41, and the second applicant in cells nos. 79, 82 and 105 at the detention centre. 35. The surface area and the height of the ceilings in all the cells were identical and amounted to 8 sq. m and 2.8 m respectively. Each cell was equipped with four bunks. The applicants shared their cells with only three other persons. At the same time, in the same submission the Government further stated that in 2000 to 2001 the detention centre had been overcrowded owing to the high level of criminal activity in the area and the limited capacity of the centre. For these reasons the number of persons detained with the applicants had exceeded the required standard. In spite of these difficulties, each detainee in the applicants’ cells had been provided with a sleeping berth. However, the Government did not specify the exact number of persons detained with the applicants and the nature of the sleeping berth. 36. The size of the windows was in accordance with the relevant regulations and comprised one-eighth of the cells’ floor space, providing the applicants with the possibility of reading and working under natural light. Each window was equipped with an air vent for additional ventilation; another source of ventilation was installed above the door. The temperature in the cells varied from +18ºC to +24ºC. The window air vents and doors were opened for ventilation when the inmates were taken for a walk. All cells were equipped with running water. The levels of temperature and the humidity in the cells, as well as the quality of water, complied with the relevant hygiene and sanitary regulations. No outbreaks of infectious or parasitogenic diseases were registered at the centre at the material time. 37. Each cell in the centre was equipped with bulbs for daytime and night lighting. The night lighting was on from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The toilet was separated from the living area by a curtain, which ensured privacy. There were no rodents or insects in the cells as the administration conducted a monthly disinfection; in addition, the staff of the medical centre regularly inspected the cells for insects and rodents. 38. The applicants and other inmates of the detention centre were allowed to take a shower once every seven days; their bed linen was changed at the same time. The applicants were provided with individual bunks, bed linen, crockery and cutlery. They were given individual toiletry kits (containing soap, a toothbrush, a shaving kit and toilet paper). Additional toiletry items could have been provided to the applicants had they submitted a written request, but they had failed to do so. 39. Open-air walks were permitted for one hour a day and there had been no instances of substituting a walk for a bath. 40. The Government submitted that the applicants had been provided with medical assistance in accordance with the relevant regulations, although at the material time the medical unit had not had a licence to practise medicine. The applicants had undergone an initial medical examination on the date of their entry to the detention centre; as a result it had been established that they had been healthy. The medical unit of the detention centre had been supplied with the necessary equipment and medicine. Referring to a number of documents, the Government stated that during the entire period of their detention at the centre, the applicants had neither sought medical help nor complained to the administration about the failure of the medical services to provide them with requested treatment. 41. In support of their position the Government submitted, among others, a number of information statements issued by the administration of IZ-25/1, witness statements of the personnel of the medical unit in IZ-25/1, records concerning the number of inmates in the cells; and copies of some documents from the investigation file.

4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal). 5. On 11 January 2006 the applicant started eviction proceedings against three tenants before the Court of Matosinhos (domestic proceedings no. 355/06.3TBMTS). 6. On 23 February 2006 the court ordered their eviction and ordered the tenants to pay 2,170 euros (EUR) for rent arrears. 7. On 14 September 2006 the applicant started enforcement proceedings. 8. The following month the court ordered the seizure (penhora) of one third of one of the tenant’s income (executado). The payment of the debt began in December. 9. Meanwhile, the tenant had asked the court to reduce the deducted amount to one sixth of his salary. The court ordered that reduction on 10 January 2007. 10. The payments stopped on 7 October 2008, when the tenant became unemployed. 11. Between October 2008 and September 2009 the enforcement solicitor (solicitador de execução) tried to find attachable assets. 12. In September 2009 the parties made an agreement according to which the debtor’s wife would continue to pay the arrears in instalments, which she did for one year. 13. According to the last information received by the Court on 17 April 2013, the proceedings were pending.

7. The applicant is an ethnic Chechen; he was born in 1941 in the Chechen Republic and lived there. In 1994 his property in the Chechen Republic was destroyed as a result of military hostilities. Since 1996 the applicant has been living in Nalchik; on 30 December 1996 a forced migrant’s card was issued to him. At the material time the applicant was the deputy chairman of the Board of the Union of Consumer Associations of the Chechen Republic. 8. On 27 January 2000 the applicant returned by car from a mission in the Chechen Republic to Nalchik in Kabardino-Balkaria. He was accompanied by Mr Ba., driver, Mr M., a member of the Parliament of the Chechen Republic, and Mr Bi., a representative of the Chechen elders. 9. At about 5 p.m. the applicant’s car was stopped at the check-point “Kurp-2” on the administrative border between Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkaria. After three hours of checking the documents and identities of the applicant and his travelling companions, officers of the Kabardino-Balkaria State Inspectorate for Road Safety (ГИБДД МВД КБР) refused them entry to Kabardino-Balkaria on the ground of their Chechen ethnic origin. 10. In the night of 27 January 2000, the applicant and his companions took a long detour and reached Nalchik through a different check-point. 11. On 24 February 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nalchik Town Court against the Kabardino-Balkaria Ministry of the Interior (МВД КБР). The applicant sought a declaration that the actions of the police officers had been unlawful, and claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the alleged violation of his constitutional right to liberty of movement. 12. The Nalchik Town Court accepted the complaint, but no proceedings took place for more than a year. Following the applicant’s complaint to the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, the Nalchik Town Court held a hearing. 13. On 13 April 2001 the Nalchik Town Court gave its judgment. The court found that on 28 September 1999 the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria had issued Directive no. 1/220 (Указание МВД КБР № 1/220) on the procedure for crossing the administrative border of Kabardino-Balkaria by residents of the Chechen Republic. The regulation provided for stricter checks of vehicles and passengers of Chechen origin, as well as for the special registration of Chechens on the basis of migrants’ cards. The court questioned the police officers who had been on duty on 27 January 2000. The officers maintained that neither the applicant nor his companions had produced their migrants’ cards; the officers had informed their superior on duty of this situation and, pursuant to his oral order, they refused admission to the applicant and his companions. The court held that the applicant had failed to prove that he had indeed shown his migrant’s card to the police officers and, therefore, there was no ground to declare their actions unlawful. The court noted that on the same night the applicant had gained admission into Kabardino-Balkaria through a different check-point. The court also inspected the registration log of 27 January 2000 and noted that on the same day other Chechen passengers carrying migrants’ cards had been admitted into Kabardino-Balkaria. 14. The applicant appealed against the judgment of 13 April 2001. He submitted, in particular, that the regulation of 28 September 1999 had not been valid and enforceable because it had never been officially published. 15. On 22 May 2001 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic upheld the judgment of 13 April 2001. The court pointed out that the burden of proof was on the applicant, who had failed to show that he had been denied entry because of his ethnic (Chechen) origin.

4. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Oreovica (Serbia). 5. On 10 July 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident caused by M.I. She claimed damages in criminal proceedings that were instituted against M.I. 6. In a final decision of 19 November 1998, the Piteşti Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) made awards in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to both the applicant and her husband. It also ordered M.I. to pay a monthly amount to the applicant until her state of dependency ceased. On 7 July and 15 December 2000 the quantum of damages and the level of the monthly instalments to the applicant were brought up to date. 7. On 15 November 2002 an application by the Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court of Justice to have the judgments in the criminal proceedings quashed (recurs în anulare) was granted by the Supreme Court of Justice, which therefore set aside the award for damage in respect of the applicant’s husband. 8. On 21 September 1999 the applicant and her husband brought an action seeking the division of property that was jointly owned by M.I. and his wife. They alleged that the community of property between spouses had hindered the enforcement of the judgment in their favour, which concerned only M.I. 9. On 7 November 2000 the Piteşti Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) upheld their claims in part, severed the joint tenancy between M.I. and his wife, and allocated their apartment to M.I. 10. On 19 April 2001 the Argeş Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) struck out an appeal by M.I. and his wife because they had failed to pay the prescribed fee. 11. On 4 September 2001 the Court of Appeal by a final decision upheld an appeal by M.I. and his wife and quashed the judgment of the Regional Court, sending the case back for a fresh examination of their appeal. It found that M.I. and his wife had not been informed of the obligation to pay the fee or of the amount due. 12. After a retrial, on 29 April 2002 the Regional Court rejected the appeal of M.I. and her wife as groundless. 13. On 16 February 2004 the Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed a subsequent appeal by M.I.’s wife, on the ground that the courts had not examined her counterclaim, and quashed the judgment of the Regional Court. It retained the case for further consideration. On 22 November 2004 the same court decided that the case was within the competence of the Regional Court. 14. On 15 April 2005 the Regional Court upheld the appeal of M.I.’s wife and varied the judgment of 7 November 2000 as follows: it allowed the applicant’s claims but rejected her husband’s, it severed the joint tenancy between M.I. and his wife, and it allocated their apartment to M.I. to enable the applicant to recover her financial claims. The judgment was enforceable. 15. On 31 October 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in a final decision. 16. Between 2001 and 2005 the applicant requested seven different bailiffs to enforce the judgment in her favour. The bailiffs took various steps, including requesting expert reports and putting M.I.’s apartment on sale by public auction. 17. On 12 June 2001 the Court of First Instance requested the Inspectorate of Police in Argeş to assign a police officer to accompany the bailiff to M.I.’s apartment. On 20 December 2002 it ordered M.I. to pay the judgment debt to the applicant, and stipulated that his apartment would be put on sale if he did not. 18. On 19 December 2005 the bailiff recorded that the applicant had received part of the amount due and had requested continued execution for the remainder. 19. On 29 December 2005 M.I. sold the apartment. The applicant and her husband lodged a civil action seeking a declaration that the sale contract was null and void on the ground that M.I. had attempted to become insolvent. On 19 October 2007 the Regional Court by a final decision dismissed the action as groundless. 20. On 10 November 2006 the applicant, through the bailiff, requested the court to validate a seizure of property. On 19 January 2007 the Court of First Instance rejected the application as being statute-barred.

4. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Helsinki. 5. In July 1994 the applicant was on a boating trip with his family. While the boat was secured to a jetty off Helsinki harbour, it began to rock heavily up and down against the jetty in a sudden surging of the waves. The applicant, standing on the jetty at the time, tried to protect his boat and his family on board, by clutching the bow with his hands. In consequence, he fell between the boat and the jetty and sustained injuries to his neck and shoulder. Due to the accident he became permanently disabled for work and on 1 August 1995 his insurance company granted him a full disability pension. 6. According to the applicant the rough waves were caused by a passing passenger ship which, in his view, had used excessive speed for the prevailing conditions. The applicant filed a criminal complaint with the police, which conducted a pre-trial investigation. The public prosecutor subsequently filed an application for a summons against the ship’s captain, who was a citizen of Estonia. The authorities failed, however, to serve the summons in due time and the alleged offences became time-barred. 7. On 3 July 1996 the applicant lodged a civil action for damages with the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) against the captain and the Estonian shipping company, which was in charge of the ship. 8. In their written response of 20 December 1996 the defendants pleaded firstly that the Helsinki District Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, the correct forum being the relevant court in Tallinn, Estonia. They also pleaded that the summons had not been properly served on the shipping company and that the claims against the captain were premature, as he could only be held liable for the amount not received from his employer. On 6 March 1998 the District Court rejected those pleas and continued with the proceedings. 9. While the proceedings were underway, the shipping company was declared bankrupt. The bankruptcy proceedings were discontinued for lack of assets and the shipping company was removed from the business register on 26 August 1999. 10. On 14 December 1999 the Helsinki District Court held a preliminary hearing in the compensation proceedings. During that hearing the applicant withdrew his claims against the shipping company. Both remaining parties requested adjournment of the proceedings in order to supplement their case. The date of the next hearing was left open. 11. It turned out that the shipping company had been insured against liability with a Norwegian insurance company. As the relevant provisions governing insurance contracts in Finland and in Norway, respectively, allowed an action to be brought against the company in the event of bankruptcy of the insured, the applicant decided to do so in the sphere of the ongoing proceedings. However, under the Finnish legislation an action for damages based on marine insurance could not be examined by a court before the relevant authority, the Average Adjuster (merivahingonlaskija, dispaschör), had issued a damage report. On 20 November 2000 the applicant filed a request with the Average Adjuster to that end. 12. In its written response of 28 September 2001 to the Average Adjuster the insurance company claimed that the authority was not competent to deal with the matter. It referred to the insurance contract and the relevant insurance terms, which stated that any dispute between the insurer and the insured was to be dealt with in arbitration proceedings (välimiesmenettely, skiljeförfarande) in Oslo, Norway. In addressing his claims directly to the association, instead of the company insured, the applicant was bound by those same terms. 13. On 18 March 2002 the Average Adjuster issued its decision. It conceded the insurance company’s objection concerning the lack of competence and refrained from issuing a report on the damages. The applicant was also ordered to pay 1,200 euros (EUR) in fees and expenses to that authority. The decision was subject to an action for annulment within 30 days. In the event that no such action was lodged, the decision was to be complied with. 14. On 11 April 2002 the applicant lodged an action against the above decision with the Helsinki District Court asking that it be quashed and the case remitted to the Average Adjuster. He further asked the court to confirm that the case could be dealt with by the general courts under Finnish law. In the alternative, he asked the court to quash the decision and to examine his claims against the insurance company jointly with his claims against the ship’s captain in the proceedings currently pending before the court. 15. On 22 March 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that he was bound by the insurance terms, including the arbitration clause. 16. The applicant appealed against the District Court’s judgment to the relevant appeal instance, the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen). On 24 April 2007 that court, having assessed the applicable legislation and the validity of the arbitration clause in respect of the applicant, upheld the lower court’s judgment. In its assessment the court took into account the relevant provisions of the Norwegian law and legal literature concerning the matter at hand. It noted that the issue before the courts had been unclear in the light of the Norwegian law and no precedent had been available. 17. On 4 September 2007 the District Court held another preliminary hearing in the compensation proceedings, which were now pursued only against the ship’s captain. As the applicant had previously withdrawn his claims against the shipping company, the court refrained from issuing a decision in that respect. The case was again adjourned and the court ordered the applicant and the defendant to submit written statements by 30 November 2007 and 4 January 2008, respectively. 18. On 11 and 14 March 2008 the District Court, sitting as a maritime court, held another preliminary hearing and the main hearing, where it received oral testimony and other evidence. 19. On 2 April 2008 the District Court issued its judgment. It found that the captain could not be held liable for the applicant’s injuries and dismissed the action. On 8 April 2008 the applicant and the defendant informed the court that they had settled the case and agreed not to appeal against the judgment. On that same date, at the request of the parties, the District Court officially confirmed the settlement of the case.

7. The applicant lives in Großbottwar, Germany. 8. He owned four shares in a company, the MotoMeter AG. 99 % of this company's shares were held by the company Robert Bosch GmbH. 9. On 6 July 1992, following a majority decision of the shareholders' meeting, the MotoMeter AG sold all its company assets to a newly founded company, the MotoMeter GmbH, and was subsequently liquidated. The majority shareholder offered to buy the minority shareholders' shares at a price of 615 DEM (314.44 EUR) per share. 10. On 22 July 1992, the applicant and other private shareholders challenged the decision of 6 July 1992 before the Stuttgart Regional Court. They submitted that the main shareholder had circumvented rules aiming at the protection of minority shareholders inherent in the German Act on Stock Companies (Aktiengesetz). They further complained that the price per share offered by the main shareholder was too low and that minority shareholders had not been able to buy parts of the assets. 11. On 22 January 1993, the Regional Court rejected the claim on the grounds that the decision in question was lawful and that there had been no violation of the applicant's and other shareholders' rights. 12. On 21 December 1993, the Stuttgart Court of Appeal rejected the appeals lodged by the applicant and the other minority shareholders. 13. On 5 December 1994, the Federal Court of Justice refused to entertain their appeals on points of law. 14. On 12 January 1995, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. 15. On 23 August 2000 (served on 13 September 2000), the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant's complaint, finding that the complaint was not of fundamental constitutional significance. Referring to an earlier decision of the same day dealing with a similar subject matter, which it attached, the Federal Constitutional Court noted that entertaining the complaint was not necessary in order to enforce the applicant's rights. Finally, as the applicant had only possessed four shares of the MotoMeter AG, his financial loss had not posed an existential burden for him.

4. The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dzerzhynsk. 5. On an unspecified date in April 1999 the applicant lodged a claim against the State Company “Dzerzhynskvugillia” (“the company”, Державне Підприємство «Дзержинськвугілля»). In particular, he claimed damages for a discrepancy in the calculations of compensation for a professional illness. On 5 April 1999 the Dzerzhynsk City Court (“the City Court”) opened proceedings on the applicant’s claim. 6. On 6 December 1999 the City Court warned the company of a penalty for its failures to appear before the court. 7. On 15 January 2002 the applicant lodged a new claim with the City Court against the company seeking indexation of his salary. 8. Having been joined on 2 December 2002, the claims were dismissed by the City Court on 1 July 2004. 9. In the meantime, the applicant had modified his claims four times and the Dzerzhynsk City Department of the State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases joined the proceedings as a second defendant. Between 7 February 2000 and 30 May 2002, the Court of Appeal quashed four first-instance judgments and ordered fresh hearings. 10. On 10 February 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 1 July 2004 in part related to the compensation of a professional illness. The court, out of UAH 6,028 (EUR 844[1]) claimed by the applicant for pecuniary and UAH 50,000 (EUR 7,000) for non-pecuniary damage, awarded the applicant UAH 177 (EUR 25). The applicant appealed in cassation. 11. On 4 June 2007 the Supreme Court, according to the Judicial System Act (as amended on 22 February 2007), transmitted the applicant’s appeal to the Kyiv Court of Appeal which, on 9 October 2007, finally upheld the decisions of 1 July 2004 and 10 February 2005. 12. In the course of the proceedings, two expert examinations were ordered and a number of procedural rulings were adopted. During the same period of time, the applicant filed nine procedural requests and eleven appeals, two of which did not meet procedural requirements. 13. According to the Government, of the seventy one hearings scheduled between 5 April 1999 and 9 October 2007, nineteen were adjourned due to the company representative’s failure to attend, eleven were adjourned at request of one or both defendants, six were adjourned at the applicant’s request, four were adjourned owing to the presiding judge’s sickness or absence, one was adjourned due to both parties’ failure to attend, and two were adjourned for other reasons beyond the parties’ control.

6. The applicant was born in 1966. Currently, he is detained at Szeged Prison. 7. It appears that on an unspecified date in 2002 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and his accomplices. 8. As the investigation against the applicant and nine other defendants proceeded, the applicant was interrogated on numerous occasions as a suspect in connection with various violent crimes committed in many different villages. The investigation resulted in a case file of 25 large boxes. According to the material collected, the applicant and his co-defendants had committed a series of burglaries against lonely elderly people in various parts of the country. They had tied up the victims and beaten them or threatened them until they disclosed where their valuables were hidden and then left them tied up alone in their houses. Some of the victims had died soon after the assaults. 9. The bill of indictment submitted on 26 June 2003 was 48 pages long, concerned ten defendants, and proposed the hearing of 72 witnesses and two forensic medical experts. The applicant was indicted on 3 counts of homicide, 19 counts of robbery, 19 counts of infringement of personal liberty, 4 counts of assault causing grievous bodily harm, 7 counts of trespass and 3 counts of theft or attempted theft. 10. After 34 hearings held from 4 February 2004 onwards, on 12 May 2005 the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, robbery and several other offences, in a 135-page-long judgment. The applicant was, as a multiple recidivist, sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, that is, whole life sentence (tényleges életfogytiglan). 11. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal held a preparatory meeting on 21 November 2005 and a hearing on 21 January 2006. It quashed the first-instance judgment on 25 January 2006 and remitted the case to the Regional Court. 12. In the resumed proceedings before the Regional Court, an amended bill of indictment was preferred on 31 August 2006 and 27 hearings were held between 25 October 2006 and 19 November 2008. Several forensic medical and graphology experts were appointed in order to verify the defence of a co-defendant to the effect that he could not have taken part in the commission of one of the crimes he was charged with since he had undergone an operation on his knee – under a false name – and was not able to walk. Although this issue was irrelevant for the applicant, it appeared to be crucial for the determination of the charges against his co-defendant. 13. On 19 November 2008 the Regional Court again convicted the applicant. The applicant submitted that the judge hearing his case this time used to be the trainee of the judge who had tried his case in the first proceedings before the Regional Court. 14. The Regional Court’s judgment was 161 pages long and covered 33 cases of crimes committed by the ten defendants. The applicant, as well as the above-mentioned co-defendant, was again sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole. 15. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal held hearings on 29 June, 28 September, and 14 and 16 December 2009. In its judgment of 16 December 2009 the Court of Appeal re-characterised the offences of which the applicant had been convicted but upheld his sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole. In order to reflect differences between the attitude of the applicant during the trial and that of the above-mentioned co-defendant (who contributed to the establishment of the facts and expressed remorse) and to make their punishments respectively proportionate, the co-defendant’s sentence was mitigated: he was no longer excluded from eligibility for parole. 16. On 28 September 2010 the Supreme Court upheld this sentence. 17. The applicant submitted that his cell at Szeged Prison, the dimensions of which are five by two metres, accommodates another inmate and the toilet is adjacent to his bed and table.

4. The applicants were born in 1943 and 1944 respectively and live in Budapest. 5. On 3 August 1992 the applicants brought an action challenging an administrative decision expropriating their land. After two hearings, on 10 May 1993 the case was suspended pending an underlying dispute concerning the situation in the land register. 6. On 29 August 2002 the case was transferred to the Pest County Regional Court as this was the competent court to deal with the case. 7. The proceedings concerning the land register were terminated by the Érd District Land Registry on 26 March 2004. The applicants did not appeal to the Pest County Land Registry. 8. After two further hearings, on 15 February 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ action. The court held that the authorities involved in the expropriation had proceeded in compliance with the law. 9. On 2 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. This decision was served on their lawyer on 27 December 2005. 10. On 16 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ petition for review as inadmissible, since it did not meet the procedural requirements.

7. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Mineralniye Vody in the Stavropol Region. 8. On 12 May 2000 the applicant was arrested and charged with passing counterfeit money. His detention was extended a number of times. 9. The applicant was committed to stand trial before the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow. According to the applicant, he was brought from the detention facility a number of times to the Gagarinskiy District Court to take part in trial hearings. On the day of a court session he was allegedly woken up at 5 or 6 a.m. and taken to a small room on the ground floor of the detention facility where he remained for several hours. The room was cold in winter. It was dirty and poorly lit. At about 11 a.m. the transportation of inmates to the courthouse began. Inmates were placed in an overcrowded van and transported in inhuman conditions for many hours; the van called in on the way at several courthouses until the inmates reached their destination. Throughout the entire day inmates, including the applicant, received no food. 10. On 5 April 2002 the Gagarinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. 11. The applicant appealed, alleging that the trial court had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the law, that it had not thoroughly examined the case, and that his case should have been tried in another court having territorial jurisdiction. 12. On 28 August 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court. 13. From 22 May 2000 to 6 September 2002 the applicant was detained in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 (commonly known as “Butyrka”) and IZ-77/3 (also known as “Krasnaya Presnya”) in Moscow. 14. According to certificates issued on 12 January 2006 by the director of the facility and produced by the Government, the applicant was kept in four different cells. From 22 May to 8 June 2000 and from 27 July 2000 to 17 April 2001 he stayed in cell no. 144 which measured 56.4 square metres and housed on average 48 inmates. From 8 June to 27 July 2000 he was kept in cell no. 129 which measured 13.8 square metres and accommodated six detainees. From 17 April 2001 to 7 April 2002 the applicant remained in cell no. 94 measuring 58.7 square metres. The average occupancy rate in that cell was 48 detainees. After 7 April 2002 he was kept in cell no. 137 with 51 inmates. Cell no. 137 measured 55.9 square metres. The Government supported their assertions with copies of extracts from registration logs showing the number of detainees on 23 May, 9 June and 28 July 2000 and 17 April 2001 and 11 April 2002. The Government, relying on the certificates of 12 January 2006, further submitted that the applicant had had an individual bunk and bedding at all times. 15. The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. However, he alleged that the bigger cells had had thirty-two sleeping places. Furthermore, the cell population changed two or three times a week. There were usually from 60 to 80 inmates in the bigger cells. Given the lack of beds, inmates had slept in shifts. No bedding or blankets were provided. (b) Sanitary conditions, installations, food and medical assistance 16. The Government, relying on the information provided by the director of the facility, submitted that the cells received natural light and ventilation through large windows, which were glazed and measured 2.5 metres in width and 1.15 metres in height. The windows were covered with metal shutters which were removed after November 2002. The cells also had an artificial ventilation system. The average temperature in the cells was between 20 and 28 degrees Celsius in summer and between 19 and 24 degrees Celsius in winter. The cells were equipped with lamps which functioned day and night. Each cell was equipped with a lavatory pan, a sink and a tap for running water. The pan was separated from the living area by a one-and-a half-metre-high concrete wall. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week. The cells were disinfected once a week. The Government, relying on the information provided by the director of the facility, further stated that the applicant was given food “in accordance with the established norms”. According to the Government, detainees, including the applicant, were provided with medical assistance. They had regular medical check-ups, including X-ray examinations, blood tests, and so on. The applicant did not make any complaints about the state of his health and did not ask for particular medical services. 17. The applicant disagreed with the Government’s description and submitted that the sanitary conditions had been unsatisfactory. The cells were infected with bed-bugs and lice but the administration did not provide any insecticides. It was extremely cold in the cells. The windows were not glazed and were covered with metal blinds which blocked access to natural light and air. The applicant pointed out that the Government did not dispute that the blinds had only been removed sometime after November 2002, that is after his detention in that facility had come to an end. He further submitted that the lavatory pan had been separated from the living area by a one-metre-high wall, thus affording no privacy to inmates. The food was of poor quality and in scarce supply. The applicant noted that the certificates provided by the Government could only attest to the sanitary conditions in the facility in January 2006, when the director of the facility had issued them. (c) Complaints about the poor conditions of detention 18. The applicant alleged that detention facility no. IZ-77/2 had been under the rule of so-called “legitimised thieves” («воры в законе»). Each cell had an “overseer” («смотрящий»). If a detainee wanted to complain about poor detention conditions or unlawful actions of the administration he had to obtain permission from an “overseer”. Only collective complaints initiated by “legitimised thieves” were allowed. The applicant further submitted that he had been unable to complain to the facility administration because he would have been subjected to a punishment. The administration could start transferring him to a new cell every second day, as had happened to other detainees. In that way he would have been completely deprived of sleep because he would have lost his place in the “sleeping queue”. 19. The Government submitted a certificate issued by the facility director on 12 January 2006. The certificate read as follows: “[I] inform you that in detention facility no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow individuals, who reckon themselves to be so-called “legitimised thieves”, do not control complaints lodged by detainees.” 2. Detention in facility no. IZ-77/3 20. On 23 April 2002 the applicant was transferred to facility no. IZ-77/3 where he remained until 6 September 2002. He was placed in cell no. 217, measuring 21.1 square metres. 21. The Government, relying on a certificate issued by the director of the facility on 11 January 2006, argued that the cell housed from five to eight detainees in the period from 12 June to 6 September 2002. They also provided extracts from registration logs showing the number of detainees on 21 June 2002. As follows from the extracts, there were seven inmates in cell no. 217. The Government further submitted that the information on the number of inmates in cell no. 217 in the period from 23 April to 12 June 2002 was not available. The Government provided a description of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in facility no. IZ-77/3, which was similar to the description of the conditions in facility no. IZ-77/2 except for one aspect: the cell windows measured 0.89 metres in width and 0.94 metres in height. 22. The applicant submitted that the sanitary conditions of his detention in facility no. IZ-77/3 had been slightly better than those in facility no. IZ-77/2. However, the cells were still severely overcrowded; he was afforded less than one square metre of personal space, and he did not have an individual sleeping place. Inmates had no privacy as the lavatory pan was not separated from the living area. The cell was infested with insects and food was very scarce. 23. On 6 September 2002 the applicant’s journey from detention facility no. IZ-77/3 in Moscow to a correctional colony in the Stavropol Region began. On the following day he arrived in Voronezh where he was placed into a “transit” remand centre. On 8 September 2002 the applicant was put on another train heading to a “transit” remand centre in Volgograd where he arrived on the following day. He remained in the Volgograd “transit” centre until 27 September 2002 when he was taken by train to Pyatigorsk. In Pyatigorsk the applicant was also detained in a “transit” remand centre. On 9 October 2002 he was placed on a train and taken to the correctional colony in the Stavropol Region where he arrived on the same day. 24. The Government, relying on certificates issued in January 2006 by various officials of the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences, submitted that the applicant had been transported in a special security compartment in a train carriage. Before being placed on the train he was body searched. The Government further noted that during his trip from Moscow to Voronezh the applicant was detained with ten other inmates in compartment no. 5. The Government did not indicate the measurements of the compartment and submitted that itineraries and other documents pertaining to the conditions of the applicant’s transport had been destroyed. 25. The applicant argued that he had been transported with 12 to 15 detainees in a four-seat train compartment measuring 1.8 metres in length and 1.6 metres in width. Inmates were allowed to use a toilet once or twice a day. Sometimes they had to urinate in plastic bottles. 26. On 9 September 2002 the applicant arrived at the Volgograd “transit” remand centre. The Government, relying on certificates issued by the facility director in June 2006 and written statements by warders drawn up in June 2006, submitted that on 9 September 2002 the applicant had been placed in cell no. 2 which measured 18.1 square metres. The cell had four sleeping places. The number of inmates corresponded to the number of bunks. The Government noted that registration logs bearing names and placement of detainees had been destroyed on 5 June 2006. They further submitted that on 10 September 2002 the applicant had complained to a warder of pain in the right ankle. He was taken to the prison hospital where, following an X-ray examination, he was diagnosed with an ankle fracture. Until 24 September 2002 he remained in a hospital cell, measuring 19.4 square metres and accommodating four detainees. The Government gave a detailed description of the treatment the applicant had been provided with, including the type of medical procedures and medicine, dose and frequency. On 24 September 2002 the applicant was transferred back to the “transit” centre and again placed in cell no. 2. The Government further submitted that the applicant had had an individual sleeping place and had been provided with bedding. The food complied with sanitary norms. 27. According to the applicant, he was placed in cell no. 2, measuring approximately 18 square metres and having 12 sleeping places. The cell housed 32 inmates. There were so many inmates that they even had to take turns to sleep on the concrete floor. The cell was located in the basement and had a small window on the ground level. There was no fresh air and the cell was very dark. There was a bucket in the corner which doubled a lavatory pan. There were lice and other insects in the cell. The applicant argued that he had remained in cell no. 2 until 12 September when, after complaints of severe pain in the right ankle, he was taken to the hospital. The applicant alleged that after a doctor had put his leg in a plaster cast he had been taken back to the “transit” remand centre and placed in cell no. 2. 28. The applicant did not make separate complaints pertaining to the conditions of his detention in other “transit” remand centres.

7. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Vlore. 8. In 1996 the applicant was appointed a judge at the Vlora District Court. In December 2001 a disciplinary inquiry was opened against her by the inspectors of the High Council of Justice (“HCJ”). On the basis of the results of this inquiry, the prosecutor's office was asked to open a criminal investigation against the applicant. The investigation was opened on 12 January 2002. This resulted in the applicant being suspended from work on the same day. 9. On 26 April 2002 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation for lack of evidence. However, on 15 July 2002 the HCJ, during the applicant's absence on sick leave, dismissed her on account of flagrant violations of professional discipline. The records of previous HCJ meetings indicated that the applicant had been summoned on several occasions to appear before it. However, she was on extended sick leave because of depressive neurosis. The HCJ continued the proceedings in absentia. 10. On 22 July 2002 the applicant challenged the HCJ's decision of 15 July 2002 by filing an appeal with the Supreme Court, which was competent to determine issues of both fact and law. On 18 November 2002 the Supreme Court Joint Benches rejected the appeal. 11. The applicant's subsequent constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court was accepted on 12 November 2004. The Constitutional Court found violations of Article 42 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention given the in absentia proceedings. It quashed both decisions (of the Supreme Court Joint Benches and the HCJ) and remitted the case for re-examination to the HCJ. 12. In response to the applicant's request for reinstatement at the Vlora District Court, the President of the District Court replied on 23 December 2004 that he was not competent to consider her request. 13. On 28 December 2004 the applicant filed a request for reinstatement with the HCJ. She requested that the HCJ re-hear her case in accordance with the Constitutional Court's decision. 14. On 24 October 2008 the HCJ decided to dismiss the applicant on account of flagrant violations that seriously discredited the position and image of a judge. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court Joint Benches. 15. On 6 February 2009 the Supreme Court Joint Benches quashed the HCJ decision of 24 October 2008. It found that the proceedings relating to the disciplinary measure had taken too long and as a result the said measure could not produce any effect and was therefore invalid (masa disiplinore e marrë tej një afati të arsyeshëm ndaj kësaj gjyqtareje është e paefektshme dhe konsiderohet e pavlefshme ... Prandaj vendimi i KLD-së duhet të shfuqizohet). 16. On 27 February 2009 the applicant was reinstated as a judge at the Vlora District Court. 17. Following the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings on 26 April 2002, the applicant requested the HCJ and the Minister of Justice on 30 April 2002 to pay her salary arrears for the period during which she was suspended from her duties. 18. On 10 April 2003 the applicant, relying on sections 27 and 38 of the Judiciary Act, lodged an application with the Vlora District Court requesting the payment of salary arrears from 12 January 2002 to 15 July 2002 and consequential damages. On 13 February 2004 the Vlora District Court (“the District Court”) decided in favour of the applicant. It found that since the criminal proceedings had been discontinued, the applicant should be paid salary arrears for the period between 12 January and 15 July 2002 in accordance with section 27 of the Judiciary Act. On an unspecified date the President of the Vlora District Court appealed the decision. 19. On 5 November 2004 the Vlora Court of Appeal quashed the District Court's judgment. It relied on the HCJ's decision of 15 July 2002, by which the applicant had been dismissed from work (see paragraph 9 above). It found that as long as no decision had been taken on the applicant's reinstatement, she could not benefit from salary arrears. 20. On 4 December 2004 the applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. She argued that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly applied the domestic law and had not given sufficient reasons in its decision. 21. On 21 October 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal finding that it did not contain any lawful grounds of appeal in accordance with Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”). 22. On 26 October 2006 the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court, relying on the same arguments as before the Supreme Court. She also alleged that the domestic courts lacked impartiality in the examination of her case. 23. On 3 July 2007 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, dismissed the appeal as manifestly ill-founded.

4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Melitopol. 5. On 29 July 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Melitopol Court against the Simferopol State University, her former employer, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation for unused leave. 6. On 19 July 2001 the court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. 7. On 21 February 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. 8. On 22 March 2005 the first-instance court left the applicant’s claims without consideration, holding that she had repeatedly failed to appear at court hearings. 9. On 21 June 2005 the court of appeal quashed that decision, finding that there was no proof that the applicant had been duly informed about the date and place of the first instance court’s hearing, and remitted the case to the first instance court for consideration on the merits. 10. On 12 December 2006 the court ordered modification of the record concerning the applicant’s dismissal and ordered the respondent to pay her certain sum, having rejected the remainder of her claims. On 22 March 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. 11. On 18 September 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation. 12. Out of sixty hearings scheduled in the applicant’s case ten were adjourned due to the applicant’s absence or upon her request, eleven hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the respondent or his representative or upon their requests, seven were adjourned due to both parties’ failure to appear. Nine hearings were adjourned due to the judge’s illness, two were adjourned due to the judge’s absence, and one was adjourned due to the liquidation of the court dealing with the applicant’s case.

7. The applicants were born in 1962 and 1960 respectively. They are a same-sex couple living in Vienna. 8. On 10 September 2002 the applicants requested the Office for Matters of Personal Status (Standesamt) to proceed with the formalities to enable them to contract marriage. 9. By a decision of 20 December 2002, the Vienna Municipal Office (Magistrat) refused the applicants’ request. Referring to Article 44 of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), it held that marriage could only be contracted between two persons of opposite sex. According to constant case-law, a marriage concluded by two persons of the same sex was null and void. Since the applicants were two men, they lacked the capacity to contract marriage. 10. The applicants lodged an appeal with the Vienna Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann), but to no avail. In his decision of 11 April 2003, the Governor confirmed the Municipal Office’s legal view. In addition, he referred to the Administrative Court’s case-law according to which it constituted an impediment to marriage if the two persons concerned were of the same sex. Moreover, Article 12 of the Convention reserved the right to contract marriage to persons of different sex. 11. In a constitutional complaint, the applicants alleged that the legal impossibility for them to marry constituted a violation of their right to respect for private and family life and of the principle of non-discrimination. They argued that the notion of marriage had evolved since the entry into force of the Civil Code in 1812. In particular, the procreation and education of children no longer formed an integral part of marriage. According to present-day perceptions, marriage was rather a permanent union encompassing all aspects of life. There was no objective justification for excluding same-sex couples from concluding marriage, all the more so since the European Court of Human Rights had acknowledged that differences based on sexual orientation required particularly weighty reasons by way of justification. Other European countries either allowed homosexual marriage or had otherwise amended their legislation in order to give equal status to same-sex partnerships. 12. Lastly, the applicants alleged a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They argued that in the event that one partner in a homosexual couple died, the other was discriminated against since he would be in a much less favourable position under tax law than the surviving partner in a married couple. 13. On 12 December 2003 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows: “The administrative proceedings that resulted in the impugned decision were exclusively concerned with the issue of the legitimacy of the marriage. Accordingly, the complainants’ sole applicable grievance is that Article 44 of the Civil Code only recognises and provides for marriage between ‘persons of opposite sex’. The allegation of a breach of the right of property is simply a further means of seeking to show that this state of affairs is unjustified. With regard to marriage, Article 12 of the [Convention], which ranks as constitutional law, provides: ‘Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.’ Neither the principle of equality set forth in the Austrian Federal Constitution nor the European Convention on Human Rights (as evidenced by [the terms] ‘men and women’ in Article 12) require that the concept of marriage, as being geared to the fundamental possibility of parenthood, should be extended to relationships of a different kind. The essence of marriage is, moreover, not affected in any way by the fact that divorce (or separation) is possible and that it is a matter for the spouses whether in fact they are able or wish to have children. The European Court of Human Rights found in its Cossey [v. the United Kingdom] judgment of 27 September 1990 (no. 10843/84, [Series A no. 184], concerning the particular position of transsexual persons) that the restriction of marriage to this ‘traditional’ concept was objectively justified, observing: ‘... that attachment to the traditional concept of marriage provides sufficient reason for the continued adoption of biological criteria for determining a person’s sex for the purposes of marriage ...’ [The subsequent change in the case-law concerning the particular issue of transsexuals (Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI) does not permit the conclusion that there should be any change in the assessment of the general question at issue here.] The fact that same-sex relationships fall within the concept of private life and as such enjoy the protection of Article 8 of the [Convention] – which also prohibits discrimination on non-objective grounds (Article 14 of the [Convention]) – does not give rise to an obligation to change the law of marriage. It is unnecessary in the instant case to examine whether, and in which areas, the law unjustifiably discriminates against same-sex relationships by providing for special rules for married couples. Nor is it the task of this court to advise the legislature on constitutional issues or even matters of legal policy. Instead, the complaint must be dismissed as ill-founded.” 14. The Constitutional Court’s judgment was served on the applicants’ counsel on 25 February 2004. 15. Article 44 of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) provides: “The marriage contract shall form the basis for family relationships. Under the marriage contract two persons of opposite sex declare their lawful intention to live together in indissoluble matrimony, to beget and raise children and to support each other.” This provision has been unchanged since its entry into force on 1 January 1812. 16. The purpose of the Registered Partnership Act (Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz) was to provide same-sex couples with a formal mechanism for recognising and giving legal effect to their relationships. In introducing the said Act, the legislator had particular regard to developments in other European States (see the explanatory report on the draft law – Erläuterungen zur Regierungsvorlage, 485 der Beilagen XXIV GP). 17. The Registered Partnership Act, Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) vol. I, no. 135/2009, came into force on 1 January 2010. Section 2 of the Act provides as follows: “A registered partnership may be formed only by two persons of the same sex (registered partners). They thereby commit themselves to a lasting relationship with mutual rights and obligations.” 18. The rules on the establishment of a registered partnership, its effects and its dissolution resemble the rules governing marriage. 19. Registered partnership involves cohabitation on a permanent basis and may be entered into between two persons of the same sex having legal capacity and having reached the age of majority (section 3). A registered partnership must not be established between close relatives or with a person who is already married or has established a still valid registered partnership with another person (section 5). 20. Like married couples, registered partners are expected to live together like spouses in every respect, to share a common home, to treat each other with respect and to provide mutual assistance (section 8(2) and (3)). As in the case of spouses, the partner who is in charge of the common household and has no income has legal authority to represent the other partner in everyday legal transactions (section 10). Registered partners have the same obligations regarding maintenance as spouses (section 12). 21. The grounds for dissolution of a registered partnership are the same as for dissolution of marriage or divorce. Dissolution of a registered partnership occurs in the event of the death of one partner (section 13). It may also be pronounced by a judicial decision on various other grounds, such as lack of intent to establish a registered partnership (section 14), fault of one or both partners, or breakdown of the partnership due to irreconcilable differences (section 15). 22. The Registered Partnership Act also contains a comprehensive range of amendments to existing legislation in order to provide registered partners with the same status as spouses in various other fields of law, such as inheritance law, labour, social and social insurance law, tax law, the law on administrative procedure, the law on data protection and public service, passport and registration issues, as well as legislation regarding foreigners. 23. However, some differences between marriage and registered partnership remain, apart from the fact that only two persons of the same sex can enter into a registered partnership. The following differences were the subject of some public debate prior to the adoption of the Registered Partnership Act: firstly, while marriage is contracted before the Office for Matters of Personal Status, registered partnerships are concluded before the district administrative authority; and secondly, the rules on the choice of name differ from those for married couples: for instance, the law uses the term “last name” where a registered couple chooses a common name, but the term “family name” is used in reference to a married couple’s common name. The most important differences, however, concern parental rights: unlike married couples, registered partners are not allowed to adopt a child; nor is the adoption of stepchildren permitted, that is to say, the adoption of one partner’s child by the other partner (section 8(4)). Artificial insemination is also excluded (section 2(1) of the Artificial Procreation Act – Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz). 24. Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was signed on 7 December 2000 and came into force on 1 December 2009, reads as follows: “The right to marry and to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.” 25. The relevant parts of the Commentary of the Charter read as follows: “Modern trends and developments in the domestic laws in a number of countries toward greater openness and acceptance of same-sex couples notwithstanding, a few States still have public policies and/or regulations that explicitly forbid the notion that same-sex couples have the right to marry. At present there is very limited legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the sense that marriage is not available to same-sex couples. The domestic laws of the majority of States presuppose, in other words, that the intending spouses are of different sexes. Nevertheless, in a few countries, e.g. in the Netherlands and in Belgium, marriage between people of the same sex is legally recognised. Others, like the Nordic countries, have endorsed a registered partnership legislation, which implies, among other things, that most provisions concerning marriage, i.e. its legal consequences such as property distribution, rights of inheritance, etc., are also applicable to these unions. At the same time it is important to point out that the name ‘registered partnership’ has intentionally been chosen not to confuse it with marriage and it has been established as an alternative method of recognising personal relationships. This new institution is, consequently, as a rule only accessible to couples who cannot marry, and the same-sex partnership does not have the same status and the same benefits as marriage. In order to take into account the diversity of domestic regulations on marriage, Article 9 of the Charter refers to domestic legislation. As it appears from its formulation, the provision is broader in its scope than the corresponding Articles in other international instruments. Since there is no explicit reference to ‘men and women’ as the case is in other human rights instruments, it may be argued that there is no obstacle to recognise same-sex relationships in the context of marriage. There is, however, no explicit requirement that domestic laws should facilitate such marriages. International courts and committees have so far hesitated to extend the application of the right to marry to same-sex couples.” 26. A number of directives are also of interest in the present case. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification determines the conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification by third-country nationals residing lawfully in the territory of the member States. Article 4, entitled “Family members”, provides: “3. The member States may, by law or regulation, authorise the entry and residence, pursuant to this directive und subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Chapter IV, of the unmarried partner, being a third-country national, with whom the sponsor is in a duly attested stable long-term relationship, or of a third-country national who is bound to the sponsor by a registered partnership in accordance with Article 5 § 2, ...” Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 concerns the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member States. Article 2 thereof contains the following definition: “For the purposes of this Directive: ... 2. ’Family member’ means: (a) the spouse; (b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a member State, if the legislation of the host member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host member State; (c) the direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); (d) the dependant direct relative in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); ...” 27. Currently, six out of forty-seven member States grant same-sex couples equal access to marriage, namely Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. 28. In addition, the following thirteen member States do not grant same-sex couples access to marriage, but have passed some kind of legislation permitting same-sex couples to register their relationships: Andorra, Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In sum, there are nineteen member States in which same-sex couples either have the possibility to marry or to enter into a registered partnership (see also the overview provided in Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 26, ECHR 2008). 29. In two States, namely Ireland and Liechtenstein, reforms intending to give same-sex couples access to some form of registered partnership are pending or planned. In addition, Croatia has a Law on same-sex civil unions which recognises cohabiting same-sex couples for limited purposes, but does not offer them the possibility of registration. 30. According to the information available to the Court, the vast majority of the States concerned have introduced the relevant legislation in the last decade. 31. The legal consequences of registered partnerships vary from being almost equivalent to marriage to giving relatively limited rights. Among the legal consequences of registered partnerships, three main categories can be distinguished: material consequences, parental consequences and other consequences. 32. Material consequences cover the impact of registered partnerships on different kinds of tax, health insurance, social security payments and pensions. In most of the States concerned, registered partners obtain a status similar to marriage. This also applies to other material consequences, such as regulations on joint property and debt, the application of rules of alimony upon break-up, entitlement to compensation following the wrongful death of the partner and inheritance rights. 33. With regard to parental consequences, however, the possibilities for registered partners to undergo medically assisted insemination or to foster or adopt children vary greatly from one country to another. 34. Other consequences include the use of the partner’s surname, the impact on a foreign partner’s ability to obtain a residence permit and citizenship, refusal to testify, next of kin status for medical purposes, the right to succeed to the deceased partner’s tenancy, and lawful organ donation.

5. The applicants were born in 1963, 1940 and 1962 respectively and live in Sofia. 6. The applicants are heirs of Mr Parvan Vasilev Parvanov, Mr Vasil Parvanov Parvanov and Mrs Tsvetanka Parvanova Koleva who owned a house in Sofia with a yard with a total surface area of 581.2 square metres. 7. By a mayor’s order of 8 April 1987, based on section 98 of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act (“the TUPA”), the house and the yard were expropriated “for embassy needs”, but with a view to realising two separate public works’ projects: (a) the construction of a block of flats and shops (Project A); and (b) the construction of an embassy (Project B). The area designated for Project A (Plot A) was 328.2 square metres and the area designated for Project B (Plot B) was 253 square metres. The applicants’ ancestors’ house remained in Plot A. The value of the entire expropriated property was assessed at 25,118.06 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). 8. The mayor’s order of 8 April 1987 also provided that for the expropriation of the property “for embassy needs” each of the applicants’ antecedents would be compensated with an apartment, situated in a building to be constructed by the Bureau for Servicing the Diplomatic Corps (“the BSDC”). 9. By three supplementary orders of 15 April 1988, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor determined the exact location, area and other details in respect of the future apartments offered as compensation. The three apartments had a total value of BGL 59,155. 10. A two-room apartment of 64 square metres was designated for Mr Parvan Vasilev Parvanov, who had passed away on an unspecified date in 1987. By virtue of his will, the property was to be received by his grandson, the first applicant. 11. Mr Vasil Parvanov Parvanov, whose heirs were the first and second applicants, his son and wife, was to receive a three-room apartment with an area of 94 square metres. 12. And lastly, Mrs Tsvetanka Parvanova Koleva was entitled to a three‑room apartment of 98 square metres, which was to be received by her daughter, the third applicant. 13. The value of the expropriated property (BGL 25,118.06) was directly credited against the value of the apartments offered as compensation. As the latter sum was higher, on unspecified dates the applicants and their ancestors paid the difference, BGL 34,036.94, to the State. 14. By orders of 4 and 27 April 1988 Mr Vasil Parvanov Parvanov and the first applicant were provided with temporary housing in two flats owned by the BSDC. It appears that after Mr Vasil Parvanov Parvanov’s death the second applicant continued to use the apartment provided for him. 15. Construction of the block of flats in which the apartments offered as compensation were to be located was never commenced. 16. On 13 April 1992, following the entry into force of the 1992 Restitution Law (see paragraph 29 below), the applicants made a request to the mayor of Sofia for the restitution of the entire property, because neither of the public works projects had commenced and the expropriated house was still standing. No response was received and on an unspecified date in May or June 1992 the applicants appealed against the tacit refusal. 17. On an unspecified date, most likely in August 1992, the expropriated house was pulled down and the BSDC commenced the realisation of Project B (see paragraph 7 above), the construction of a Polish embassy complex. 18. Upon the applicants’ appeal against the mayor’s tacit refusal, on 7 October 1994 the Sofia City Court found partly in their favour. It noted that their property had been expropriated for two distinct public works projects – Project A, to be realised on Plot A, and Project B, to be realised on Plot B. In so far as the realisation of Project B had commenced on Plot B, this part of the property, namely 253 square metres of the site, could not be restored. However, as Project A had not commenced, the restitution of Plot A, amounting to 328.2 square metres, was possible. 19. The Sofia City Court further noted that under the original expropriation and compensation orders (see paragraphs 7-9 above) the applicants and their antecedents had been provided with apartments as compensation in respect of the property expropriated “for embassy needs” (Plot B) and that the value of Plot A had been credited against the value of the apartments. On this basis, the domestic court held that the restitution of Plot A would be effective upon reimbursement of its value. On the basis of the original expropriation and compensation orders of 1987-88, it calculated that amount to be BGL 22,697.81. Apparently, the value of Plot A was much higher than the value of Plot B (which remained BGL 2,420.27) as this was where the applicants’ ancestors’ house had been standing. 20. None of the parties appealed against this judgment and it entered into force. In order to effect the restitution, on 4 September 1995 the applicants paid the State BGL 22,697.81 which, owing to inflation and the depreciation of the Bulgarian currency, equalled approximately USD 330. 21. In 1996 the Sofia municipality petitioned the Sofia City Court to interpret its judgment of 7 October 1994 in respect of whether it still owed the applicants three apartments as compensation. 22. On 27 January 1997 the Sofia City Court refused to provide the interpretation sought, pointing out that its judgment was quite clear as regards the dispute examined, namely about the claimants’ right to restitution of the property. 23. By a letter of 2 December 1997 the BSDC informed the applicants that following the judgment of the Sofia City Court of 7 October 1994 the apartments offered as compensation for the expropriation of the property were no longer due. 24. On 16 July 1998 the mayor of Sofia revoked the three orders of 15 April 1988 (see paragraph 9 above). The applicants appealed against this decision. 25. By a judgment of 21 November 1999 the Sofia City Court dismissed the appeal. The applicants appealed again. 26. In a final judgment of 29 December 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC”) quashed the lower court’s judgment and the decision of the mayor of Sofia of 16 July 1998. However, it based its conclusions on the finding that it had not been necessary for the mayor to formally revoke the three orders of 15 April 1988; they had been automatically revoked by virtue of the judgment of 7 October 1994 (see paragraphs 18-20 above). In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court held: “The revocation of the expropriation, even concerning only part of the [original] property, in respect of which the requirements of [the 1992 Restitution Law] were met, resulted, by virtue of the [judgment of the Sofia City Court of 7 October 1994], in the revocation of the orders under sections 98 and 100 [of the TUPA], as it is to be considered that no expropriation ever took place. That is why the [Sofia] mayor did not have to expressly revoke the orders under section 100 [of the TUPA].” 27. The SAC did not explain why it considered that the partial restitution of the applicants’ property by virtue of the judgment of 7 October 1994 had removed their entitlement to any compensation at all. 28. No apartments or other compensation have thereafter been provided to the applicants. Neither did the authorities ever reimburse the applicants for any of the payments they had made to the State in respect of (1) the difference in the value of the apartments offered as compensation and the expropriated property (BGL 34,036.94), which the applicants and their ancestors had paid to the State in the 1980s (see paragraph 13 above); or (2) the value of Plot A (BGL 22,697.81), which had been credited against the value of the apartments promised as compensation and which the applicants had paid to the State in order to effectuate the partial restitution (see paragraph 20 above). 29. On an unspecified date after June 2002 the first applicant was evicted from the flat provided for him as temporary housing (see paragraph 14 above).

4. The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained on remand in the Diyarbakır prison. 5. On 10 September 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody in Diyarbakır on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah. 6. On 4 October 1994 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge. The same day the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 7. In an indictment dated 24 October 1994, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and twenty seven others, before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of taking part in its activities. The prosecution requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code. 8. On 21 March 2002 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a new indictment against the applicant and some of his co-accused, charging them with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. On 26 March 2002 the two cases were joined. 9. State Security Courts were abolished by constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004. Subsequently, the applicant’s case was resumed before the Diyarbakır Assize Court, where the proceedings are still pending. 10. Between 4 November 1994 and 23 December 2005 the first-instance court held eighty hearings. In the course of the proceedings the court considered the applicant’s detention on remand regularly, either on its own motion or upon the request of the applicant and each time it ordered his continued detention on remand, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.

5. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budapest. 6. On 9 May 2007 the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) held a demonstration in Budapest to protest against racism and hatred (hereinafter: MSZP demonstration). Simultaneously, members of Jobbik, a legally registered right-wing political party assembled in an adjacent area to express their disagreement. The applicant, silently holding a so-called Árpád-striped flag in the company of some other people, was observed by police as he stood nearby, at the steps leading to the Danube embankment (the location where in 1944/45, during the Arrow Cross regime, Jews were exterminated in large numbers). His position was close to the MSZP event and a few metres away from the lawn of the square where the Jobbik demonstration was being held. According to the testimonies which the police officers subsequently gave in court, they had been instructed not to tolerate the Árpád-striped flag if it was displayed closer than 100 metres to the MSZP demonstration. The applicant and other witnesses later stated in court that the holders of the Árpád-striped flag were called “fascists” and “arrow-crossers” by the bystanders. The police supervising the scene called on the applicant either to remove the banner or leave. The applicant refused to do so, pointing out that this flag was a historical symbol and that no law forbade its display. Subsequently he was committed to the Budapest Gyorskocsi Police Holding Facility, where he was held in custody and under interrogation for six hours. After he had been released, the Budapest 5th District Police Department fined him 50,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 200 euros) for the regulatory offence of disobeying police instructions. The applicant’s complaint to the Pest Central District Court was to no avail. 7. On appeal, the court held hearings on 7 December 2007 and 21 February 2008 and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The court was satisfied that his conduct had been of a provocative nature, likely to result in unruliness in the context of the ongoing Socialist demonstration, and that his right to free expression could not be considered as reaching so far as to cause prejudice to public order. Despite the opinion of a heraldic expert, submitted by the applicant and stating that the flag in question was a historical one, the court considered its display offensive in the circumstances, because it had been placed higher than the national flag representing the Republic of Hungary. Therefore, the applicant’s behaviour was considered to have been provocative. 8. Act no. XX of 1949 on the Constitution (as in force at the material time) provides: Article 61 “(1) In the Republic of Hungary everyone has the right to freedom of expression and speech, and to access and distribute information of public interest.” Article 62 “(1) The Republic of Hungary recognises the right to peaceful assembly and ensures the free exercise thereof.” 9. Act no. III of 1989 on the Right to Freedom of Assembly (“the Assembly Act”) provides: Section 1 “The right of assembly is a fundamental freedom guaranteed for everyone. The Republic of Hungary recognises this right and ensures its undisturbed exercise.” Section 2 “(1) In the framework of the exercise of the right of assembly, peaceful gatherings, marches and demonstrations (henceforth jointly: assemblies) may be held where the participants may freely express their opinion. ...” Section 11 “(1) The order of the assembly shall be secured by the organiser. (2) The police and other competent bodies shall, upon the organiser’s request, contribute to the maintenance of the order of the assembly and arrange for the removal of persons disturbing the assembly.” Section 14 “(1) Where the exercise of the right of assembly violates section 2(3) or the participants appear bearing arms or carrying weapons or in an armed manner, or hold an assembly subject to prior notification despite a prohibiting decision, the assembly shall be dispersed by the police. (2) The dispersal of the assembly shall be preceded by a warning.” 10. Act no. LXIX of 1999 on Administrative Offences provides: Section 142 – Disturbance “(1) Anyone who a) fights or invites another person to fight, b) in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct manifests disobedience to a measure imposed by the acting official person, shall be punishable with imprisonment or a fine up to HUF 150,000. (2) Anyone who appears at a public assembly a) possessing firearms or ammunition or any tool suitable for killing or causing bodily injury, b) disobeying the organiser’s or the police’s security-related instructions shall be punishable with a fine up to HUF 50,000. (3) The perpetrator of the administrative offence specified in subsections (1)-(2) may also be subjected to a ban. (4) Proceedings for the administrative offence specified in subsection (1) fall within the competence of the court, whereas proceedings for the administrative offence specified in subsection (2) fall within the competence of the police. (5) For the purposes of this Act, public assembly means: an assembly falling within the ambit of the Act on the Right to Freedom of Assembly and accessible for anyone under identical conditions.” 11. Section 143 of Act no. CV of 2004 on Defence and the Hungarian Defence Force (as in force at the material time) lists the Árpád-striped flag as one of the historical Hungarian banners. 12. Government Decree no. 218/1999. (ХП.28.) on Certain Administrative Offences provides as follows: Section 40/A – Disobeying a lawful measure “(1) A fine of up to HUF 50,000 may be imposed on a person who disobeys the lawful measures of a professional member of a law enforcement body.” 13. Decision no. 75/2008. (V.29.) AB of the Constitutional Court contains the following passages: “1. The Constitutional Court establishes that the right of assembly recognised in Article 62(1) of the Constitution also covers the holding of events organised in advance including peaceful events where the assembly can only be held shortly after the causing event. In addition, the right of assembly covers assemblies held without prior organisation. 2. The Constitutional Court holds that it is a constitutional requirement following from Article 62(1) of the Constitution that in the application of section 6 of Act no. III of !989, the obligation of notification pertains to organised events to be held on public ground. It is unconstitutional to prohibit merely on the basis of late notification the holding of such peaceful assemblies that cannot be notified three days prior to the date of the planned assembly, because of the nature of the causing event.” 14. Decision no. 55/2001. (XI. 29.) AB of the Constitutional Court contains the following passages: “... In so far as the necessity of restricting the right of assembly is concerned, an independent examination should be made on the restriction realised in the form of the obligation to give notification in advance of assemblies planned to be held on public places of any kind, and on the restriction realised in the form of the right of the authorities to prohibit in certain cases the holding of the assembly. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the necessity of applying the obligation of notification to assemblies to be held on public grounds is justified by the fact that, in line with the detailed definition in section 15(a) of Act no. III of 1989, public ground is an area, road, street or square with unlimited access for everyone. Here, unlimited access for everyone means that both the participants in the assembly and everyone else who does not participate therein should have equal access to the public ground. The possibility to use the public ground is a precondition not only for the enforcement of the freedom of assembly but for that of another fundamental right as well: the right of free movement guaranteed in Article 58 of the Constitution.” 15. The Report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on Hungary (fourth monitoring cycle), adopted on 20 June 2008, contains the following passages: “61. Since [the Report of the third monitoring cycle], and apparently building on, at least in part, a series of highly charged anti-government demonstrations at the end of 2006, there has been a disturbing increase in racism and intolerance in public discourse in Hungary. In particular, the creation and rise of the radical right-wing Hungarian Guard (Magyar Gárda) – a group bearing close ties to a well known radical right-wing political party – is consistently cited as a cause for deep concern. Since its creation in August 2007 and the public swearing in of several hundred new members in October 2007, the Hungarian Guard has organised numerous public rallies throughout the country, including in villages with large Roma populations; despite apparently innocuous articles of association, amongst the group’s chief messages is the defence of ethnic Hungarians against so-called “Gypsy crime”. Members of the Hungarian Guard parade in matching, paramilitary-style black boots and uniforms, with insignia and flags closely resembling the flag of the Arrow Cross Party, an openly Nazi organisation that briefly held power in Hungary during World War II, and during whose spell in power tens of thousands of Jews and Roma were killed or deported. 16. In Kivenmaa v. Finland (Communication No. 412/1990, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/412/1990 (1994)), the United Nations Human Rights Committee held as follows: “9.2 The Committee finds that a requirement to notify the police of an intended demonstration in a public place six hours before its commencement may be compatible with the permitted limitations laid down in article 21 of the Covenant. In the circumstances of this specific case, it is evident from the information provided by the parties that the gathering of several individuals at the site of the welcoming ceremonies for a foreign head of State on an official visit, publicly announced in advance by the State party authorities, cannot be regarded as a demonstration. Insofar as the State party contends that displaying a banner turns their presence into a demonstration, the Committee notes that any restrictions upon the right to assemble must fall within the limitation provisions of article 21. A requirement to pre-notify a demonstration would normally be for reasons of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Consequently, the application of Finnish legislation on demonstrations to such a gathering cannot be considered as an application of a restriction permitted by article 21 of the Covenant. 9.3 The right for an individual to express his political opinions, including obviously his opinions on the question of human rights, forms part of the freedom of expression guaranteed by article 19 of the Covenant. In this particular case, the author of the communication exercised this right by raising a banner. It is true that article 19 authorizes the restriction by the law of freedom of expression in certain circumstances. However, in this specific case, the State party has not referred to a law allowing this freedom to be restricted or established how the restriction applied to Ms. Kivenmaa was necessary to safeguard the rights and national imperatives set forth in article 19, paragraph 2(a) and (b) of the Covenant.” 17. In its decision no. BVerfG, 1 BvR 961/05 of 6 May 2005, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany held that, in the light of the specific circumstances arising from the location and time of the demonstration, it was constitutionally acceptable to restrict the route of a planned extreme right-wing rally, despite its prior announcement, in order to defend the dignity of the Jewish victims of Nazi violence and tyranny. The Constitutional Court, appreciating the historical origins of the Federal Republic of Germany, upheld, in derogation from the principle of priority, the restriction of the earlier announced demonstration in favour of a commemorating assembly on the concerned location with special regard to the anniversary of the surrender in World War II. 18. The current position of the Supreme Court of the United States is summarised in Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), in the context of cross burning (a traditional threatening activity of the Klu Klux Klan). According to this judgment, the burning of a cross is a “symbol of hate”, regardless of whether the message is a political one or also meant to intimidate. And while cross-burning sometimes carries no intimidating message, at other times the intimidating message is the only message conveyed. The protections afforded by the First Amendment are not absolute, and the government may regulate certain categories of expression, including the ban of a “true threat”. Intimidation, in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word, is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. The fact that cross-burning is a symbolic expression does not resolve the constitutional question. Sometimes the cross-burning is a statement of ideology, a symbol of group solidarity. The Supreme Court required effort to distinguish among these different types of cross-burnings and considered the contextual factors that were necessary to decide whether a particular cross-burning was intended to intimidate. The Supreme Court went on to state: “It may be true that a cross burning, even at a political rally, arouses a sense of anger or hatred among the vast majority of citizens who see a burning cross. But this sense of anger or hatred is not sufficient to ban all cross burnings. As Gerald Gunther has stated, «The lesson I have drawn from my childhood in Nazi Germany and my happier adult life in this country is the need to walk the sometimes difficult path of denouncing the bigot’s hateful ideas with all my power, yet at the same time challenging any community’s attempt to suppress hateful ideas by force of law» (Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 366-7 (2003)). The impact of (undeniably outrageous) speech on a funeral procession was considered in Snyder v. Phelps (131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011). Members of a church picketed within 200 to 300 feet from a soldier’s funeral service. The picket signs reflected the church’s view that the United States is overly tolerant of sin and that God kills American soldiers as punishment. The Supreme Court held: “In public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment ... funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But [it] addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner... The speech ... did not itself disrupt that funeral ... Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate” (Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 1219 (2011)). In Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), the Supreme Court upheld a municipal ban on residential picketing that had been adopted in response to the picketing by anti-abortion protestors of the home of a physician who performed abortions. Here the offensive and disturbing picketing focused on a “captive” home audience.

4. The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Vinnytsia. 5. On 20 May 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position of managing director of a private company, V.Ph. 6. In May 1997 he instituted proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsia (“the Leninsky Court”) against a joint-stock company, V.M., the owner of V.Ph., seeking: reinstatement as director; recovery of salary arrears for the period of involuntary leave between dismissal and reinstatement; recovery of court fees; and compensation for loss of working time. 7. On 17 April 2001 the Zhytomyr Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), following several hearings in the case, endorsed a friendly settlement between the applicant and V.M., pursuant to which V.M. undertook to reinstate the applicant and pay him the amounts claimed. 8. V.M. paid the applicant the amounts due to him pursuant to the friendly settlement. On 17 April 2001 it approved his reinstatement but on 18 April 2001 it issued a resolution abolishing the position of the director of V.Ph. on the grounds of a reduction in staff. On 19 April 2001 V.M. made the applicant redundant as of 20 April 2001. 9. On 14 May 2001, at the applicant’s request, the Regional Court issued a warrant of execution in relation to its ruling of 17 April 2001. The applicant lodged the warrant with the State Bailiffs’ Service (“the bailiffs”). 10. On 7 August 2001 the bailiffs terminated the enforcement of the Regional Court’s judgment. On 7 September 2001 the Leninsky Court quashed the termination, holding that the ruling in question had only been partially enforced because the applicant had not in fact been allowed to perform his job. 11. On 9 August 2002, 8 July and 20 August 2003 and 12 August 2005 respectively, the Leninsky Court quashed the bailiffs’ subsequent resolutions terminating the enforcement and ordered them to enforce the ruling of 17 April 2001. 12. On 17 February and 26 April 2004, the Leninsky Court and the Regional Court respectively issued reminders to the bailiffs that the ruling of 17 April 2001 remained unenforced. 13. On 14 June 2004 the Regional Court issued a duplicate of the warrant. On 16 July 2004 it reprimanded the bailiffs for their continued non‑enforcement. 14. According to the applicant, the ruling at issue remains unenforced. 15. On 16 July 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky Court against the bailiffs, complaining of their failure to enforce the ruling of 17 April 2001 and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 16. In a judgment of 28 October 2002 the Leninsky Court awarded the applicant damages and ordered the bailiffs to enforce the ruling concerned. 17. On 18 March 2003 the same court, following the bailiffs’ request for review in the light of newly discovered facts, quashed its above-mentioned judgment. 18. In two separate rulings of 23 October 2003 it terminated the proceedings, leaving the applicant’s claim for compensation without consideration. The applicant appealed against the first ruling. 19. On 2 December 2003 the Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the ruling at issue. The applicant appealed in cassation. 20. On 27 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine transferred the case to the Higher Administrative Court which, on 25 July 2007, returned the case to the Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction. According to the Government, on 13 August 2007 the case was transferred to the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal in accordance with new cassation procedures. 21. On 8 January 2008 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, quashed the decision of 2 December 2003, stating that the lower court had misapplied the law, and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal. 22. According to the Government, on 19 March 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the Leninsky Court’s ruling of 23 October 2003. The applicant did not contest this statement, nor did he inform the Court of any further appeals. 23. On 29 December 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky Court against the bailiffs, challenging their refusal to institute enforcement proceedings regarding an unspecified judgment in his favour. 24. On 8 February 2005 the court left his action without consideration noting that the Court of Appeal was competent to deal with it. 25. On 24February 2005 the Court of Appeal, having found that the applicant’s action was outside its jurisdiction, left it unexamined. 26. On 23 October 2007 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, upheld this decision. 27. In March 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal against V.M., seeking recovery of salary arrears for the period from 19 June 2001 to 1 March 2003. 28. On 7 July 2002 the court rejected his claims as unsubstantiated. 29. On 4 December 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment. 30. Since September 2002 the applicant had repeatedly requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against various managers of V.M. who, according to him, were partially responsible for the non-enforcement of the ruling of 17 April 2001. 31. The criminal proceedings were opened, closed and subsequently resumed several times following the applicant’s complaints to the courts: most recently on 25 March 2009, the District Court quashed a decision by the prosecutor to terminate the investigation. By letter of 17 April 2009 the applicant informed the Court that the investigation was pending before the prosecutors, but that he had not been granted victim status.

9. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Tartu (Estonia). He is the owner of a company called AS Giga and chairman of the board of directors. He is also the chairman of another company called AS Tartu Jõujaam. 10. On 4 December 1995 the Tartu police initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for abusing his position as company chairman. 11. On 26 February 1996, on discovering that AS Giga had failed to pay certain mandatory taxes, the city tax authorities issued an order directing it to pay the taxes due. 12. On 22 March 1996 the applicant was formally charged with abuse of office, tax evasion and falsification of documents. However, on 28 June 1996 the charge of abuse of office was dropped. 13. On 1 July 1996 a further charge of fraud was added to the indictment. 14. On 7 October 1996 the investigating officers furnished the applicant with the final version of the charges. They concerned his actions as chairman of AS Giga and AS Tartu Jõujaam and as owner of the former. Under Article 148-1 § 7 of the Criminal Code (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below) he was accused of the intentional, continuous and large-scale concealment of taxable amounts and of submitting false information on the companies' expenditure. The charges under that Article were divided into three different counts: one relating to five instances in 1993 and 1994 of the forgery and fabrication of documents intended to show commercial dealings with a fictitious company; the second to the use at the end of 1994 and in 1995 of false documents purporting to relate to the payment of salaries to employees of AS Giga; and the third to the entry into a sham contract on 12 May 1995 in order to circumvent tax laws. 15. On 31 October 1996, after the completion of the preliminary investigation, the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case file. 16. On 11 November 1996 the bill of indictment was approved by the competent prosecutor and the case referred to the Tartu City Court (Tartu Linnakohus). 17. On 4 March 1997 the City Court committed the applicant for trial on the above charges. On 24 April 1997 he was served with a copy of the indictment as approved by the City Court. 18. By a judgment of 13 October 1997, the City Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. In convicting the applicant of the charges of tax evasion under Article 148-1 § 7 of the Criminal Code, the City Court observed that the criminal acts had started in the third quarter of 1993, with the last act beginning on 12 May 1995. It considered that they constituted a continuing offence. They all contained the elements of the same offence – they were directed against the State taxation system, had the same criminal consequences, were all committed intentionally and in a similar fashion, namely by falsifying documents and presenting them to the tax authorities. The City Court held that the applicant's acts came within Article 148-1 §§ 1 to 4 of the Criminal Code. As they had caused considerable damage, they fell to be considered under paragraph 7 of that Article. The City Court pointed out that paragraph 7 was applicable irrespective of whether prior administrative penalties had been imposed on the accused and it referred to the practice of the Supreme Court in support for that view. It ordered the applicant to pay the city tax authorities 853,550 Estonian kroons in outstanding taxes. No fine or tax surcharge was imposed. 19. On 18 October 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment with the Tartu Court of Appeal. He argued that in convicting him under Article 148-1 § 7 of the Criminal Code of offences committed in 1993 and 1994, the City Court had applied the criminal law retrospectively, as paragraph 7 had not entered into force until 13 January 1995. Prior to that date conviction under Article 148-1 could follow only if an administrative penalty had been imposed on the accused for the same act or he or she had a previous criminal conviction for a similar offence. 20. By a judgment of 12 January 1998, the Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's conviction. It considered that after his first criminal act in 1993 he had embarked on a criminal enterprise which had lasted until 1996, when the tax authorities discovered the offences. The fact that no administrative penalty had been imposed on the applicant was not relevant for the purposes of determining the applicability of Article 148-1 § 7 of the Criminal Code, as the offending acts had been committed intentionally. A criminal intent was proved by his conscious and calculated concealment of matters giving rise to a tax liability and his failure to pay the taxes. 21. On 17 February 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) raising the question of the retrospective application of the relevant provision of criminal law. He also argued that the concealment of matters giving rise to a tax liability was not a continuing offence, but a series of individual acts. 22. By a judgment of 8 April 1998, the Supreme Court, agreeing with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, upheld the applicant's conviction. In response to the applicant's above argument, it said that a constant and continuous violation of the obligation to declare one's sources of income and to pay the taxes due created a persisting criminal state.

5. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kraljevo. 6. On 6 November 2008 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Kraljevo ordered socially/State-owned companies Holding Kompanija FVK AD “Vagonogradnja”, Holding Kompanija FVK AD, and Koncern FVK AD “Vagonogradnja” (the debtors) to pay to the applicant certain sums on account of salary arrears and employment related benefits. 7. On 5 March 2009 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Kraljevo quashed one part of the judgment and remitted it to the first-instance court for a retrial. That part of the judgment is not the subject-matter of the present case. Furthermore, the District Court amended another part of the judgment of 6 November 2008 and upheld the remainder of it. 8. The relevant part of the judgment of 6 November 2008, as amended on 5 March 2009, became both final and enforceable on 20 April 2009. 9. On 28 December 2009 the applicant filed a request for enforcement of the judgment of 6 November 2008. 10. On 29 January 2010 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Kraljevo, now acting as the competent court, ordered the applicant to remedy some shortcomings in her request for enforcement. On 3 February 2010 the applicant did so. 11. On 26 April 2010 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtors were undergoing restructuring. 12. On 5 September 2011 the applicant requested the Court of First Instance to continue with the enforcement. 13. On 26 September 2011 the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order. On 17 May 2012 the enforcement order was quashed on appeal, as the debtors’ names were changed in the meantime. 14. On 19 June 2012 the applicant informed the enforcement court of the debtors’ new names. 15. On 17 September 2013 the Court of First Instance issued a fresh enforcement order. It awarded the applicant 36,567 Serbian dinars (RSD) on account of the enforcement costs. On 13 December 2013 the enforcement order was upheld on appeal. 16. On 30 April 2014 the Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to provide further details about the debtors’ names, the amounts of social benefits due and the bank accounts for their payment. On 12 May 2014 the applicant provided the requested information. 17. The judgment of 6 November 2008, as amended on 5 March 2009 is yet to be enforced.

4. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Snežnica. 5. On 13 March 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Čadca District Court. He claimed compensation in a labour dispute. On 11 September 1998 the case was transferred to the Považská Bystrica District Court. 6. In the period following the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 14 February 2006 (see below) the Považská Bystrica District Court held three hearings. It also requested the Čadca District Court to hear witnesses and twice urged it to do so. 7. On 15 March 2007 the Považská Bystrica District Court granted the applicant’s claim. The judgment became final on 12 May 2007. 8. On 14 February 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Považská Bystrica District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. 9. The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex. Although the applicant had to a certain extent contributed to the length of the proceedings through insufficient cooperation, that had not influenced the overall length of the proceedings. Delays imputable to the Považská Bystrica District Court had amounted to a total of 4 years. 10. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 40,000 (the equivalent of 1,066 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the reimbursement of the applicant’s legal costs and ordered the Považská Bystrica District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings.

7. On 10 December 2008 the applicant was charged with an aggravated fraud and remanded in custody. 8. On 4 February 2010 the Arzamas Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed, complaining about a number of procedural irregularities and allegedly erroneous assessment of the evidence. 9. On 9 April 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction, reducing the sentence by one month. 10. During several periods between 10 December 2008 and 6 February 2010 the applicant was held in the temporary detention centre (IVS) of Arzamas in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. He was regularly taken out of that facility either to take part in the trial or to undergo medical treatment in a prison hospital. 11. The conditions of the applicant’s detention in IVS of Arzamas were characterised by the following elements: the applicant’s cell 6 in the basement measured 5.3 sq. m and accommodated two inmates, there was no window, table or bench, the toilet was not seaprated from the rest of the cell by a partition. In addition, no outdoor exercise was available to the detainees. 12. The applicant brought an action in connection with poor conditions of detention in IVS of Arzamas. By the judgment of 18 February 2010, the Arzamas Town Court found that the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell located in the basement that had no windows. The applicant was not taken outdoors. It held that the conditions of the applicant’s detention during that period had fallen short of the requirements of Russian law.

5. The applicant was born in 1975. When introducing her application to the Court, she lived in Meckenheim, Germany, where the applicant continues to reside to this day. 6. In 2001, in Germany, the applicant married E.B., a German citizen. Their marriage was registered in Lithuania in 2008. They have two daughters, who were born in 2002 and 2003. They all lived in Lithuania. 7. In January 2010 the Lithuanian authorities granted the applicant legal aid in connection with her intent to start divorce and custody proceedings. The following month the applicant applied to the Marijampolė District Court to have her marriage dissolved. She also asked for permission for both daughters to reside with her permanently, and for child maintenance from E.B. 8. In March 2010 Marijampolė Municipal Children’s Rights Protection Service (Vaiko teisių apsaugos tarnyba – hereinafter “the Marijampolė service”) informed the court in writing that the girls’ answers regarding who they would like to live with were unclear. They wished to live with both parents. Given the girls’ young age, and in the absence of information that the applicant was not performing her maternal duties properly, the service stated that residing with the applicant would not be against the children’s interests. 9. The applicant’s husband E.B. then lodged a counterclaim, asking the court to make a residence order in his favour. 10. The applicant then asked the court to grant a temporary protective measure – for the girls to temporarily reside with her until the case was decided on the merits. She submitted that the girls had no citizenship. Given the level of conflict between her and E.B., she feared that he might take the girls to Germany with him and she would then face obstacles in securing their return. 11. On 12 April 2010 the Marijampolė District Court allowed the applicant’s request for a temporary protective measure. The girls were thus to stay with the applicant until the end of the custody proceedings. The ruling was upheld on 31 May 2010 by the Kaunas Regional Court. The latter court ruling, however, specified that the applicant’s husband retained the right to have contact with his daughters at their place of residence or educational institutions. 12. On 19 April 2010 the Marijampolė service provided the court with conclusions indicating that the girls would not clearly state who they would like to live with. The father had suitable accommodation in which to raise them. The service concluded that the interests of the girls, “as future women (kaip būsimoms moterims)” would be better met if they lived together with the mother. Information obtained from doctors and educational institutions confirmed that the applicant took care of her daughters, who had (earlier) attended kindergarten and school in Marijampolė. The Marijampolė service nevertheless noted that its conclusions in the case could be revised if new circumstances emerged. On 9 April 2010 the applicant also wrote to the Kaunas Municipal Children’s Rights Protection Service (hereinafter “the Kaunas service”) stating that on 6 April he tried to call his daughters on the telephone, but no one answered. The applicant, with whom the daughters had to be, did not answer her telephone either. The applicant noted that the older daughter attended school in Marijampolė, but she had not been seen at school as of 6 April. He went to the apartment which the applicant had been renting in Marijampolė, but found the doors locked. E.B. considered that the applicant abused her parental rights, obstructed him to communicate with his daughters even by telephone, and did not guarantee the girl’s right to attend school. E.B. suspected that the applicant could have taken their daughters to Kaunas. He asked the Kaunas service to investigate the situation and promised his full cooperation. In reply, on 27 April 2010 the Kaunas service noted that since March 2010 the applicant had been living with her daughters in Kaunas. Between April and June 2010 one of the girls attended kindergarten, and the other attended school. Conditions at the flat where the applicant lived in Kaunas were appropriate for the girls. 13. It transpires from a police report that on 4 June 2010 the applicant contacted Kaunas police to report that she had allowed E.B. to see their daughters in Kaunas that day but he had not returned them to her. The police established that the girls were with their father in Marijampolė. On 10 June 2010 a police officer visited E.B. and the girls in Marijampolė and found them to be safe. The officer telephoned the applicant and asked her to come and take the girls. She replied that she had already contacted a bailiff and would not be going to pick them up herself. 14. On 8 June 2010 the applicant made a further application for protective measures, asking the Marijampolė District Court to restrict her husband’s right to see his daughters. 15. The Marijampolė District Court then deemed it necessary to ask both the Kaunas and Marijampolė services to provide information, and decided to hold an oral hearing to better establish whether any circumstances had evolved. The Kaunas service provided conclusions on 22 June 2010, stating that by agreement of the parents the girls had met their father on 4 June, but he had not yet returned them. Their colleagues, child care specialists from the Marijampolė service, had visited the girls at their father’s home. The girls explained that they liked and wished to be there; their interests or rights had not been compromised. The Kaunas service also noted that, in accordance with Article 3.164 of the Civil Code, a child who could express his or her views had to be heard and have his or her wishes taken into account, unless they were against his or her interests. For the Kaunas child care specialists, it was desirable to have an order in place setting out how the girls could have contact with their father pending the proceedings. On 23 June 2010 the Marijampolė service informed the court in writing that earlier that month they had visited E.B.’s apartment twice, without prior notification, on 11 and 21 June. The girls had communicated with their father naturally and without tension. There was no reason to believe that they were physically or emotionally unsafe at their father’s home. E.B. explained that on 4 June 2010 he took the girls on common agreement with the applicant. A couple of hours later, when he wished to return their daughters, the applicant could not be reached on her telephone. The applicant therefore took the girls to Marijampolė. The service considered that the applicant’s suggestions that E.B. could kidnap the girls and take them to Germany were unfounded. The service also noted that it was unclear why the applicant would not call her daughters by telephone or come to Marijampolė and contact the service so that they could go and visit the girls together (a point remade in its separate letter to the applicant of the same date). The service also stressed that the manner in which both E.B. and the applicant chose to resolve their conflict – which, due to their complaints, required the girls to communicate with child care specialists and police officers – negatively affected the children. 16. On 28 June 2010 the applicant declared her place of residence as Kaunas. The same month the Kaunas and Marijampolė services exchanged a number of letters with the applicant, replying to various requests for information and assistance. It was noted, inter alia, that she had been asked to visit the Marijampolė service to resolve the matter of the girls’ return and to go to E.B.’s home with police officers to take the girls, but she had declined to do so. The child care specialists also noted having visited E.B.’s home, where the girls had been found. E.B. had explained to the child care specialists that his daughters did not wish to go to their mother’s and that he did not want to take them there by force. The Marijampolė service enquired with the applicant why she herself had not been calling her daughters and had not applied to the service for assistance in meeting them. For the child care specialists, the manner in which the applicant chose to solve her dispute with E.B. negatively affected the girls’ psychological well-being, because they had to communicate with various authorities often. The applicant was also informed that it was the bailiff who was competent to enforce court decisions. 17. On 9 July 2010 the Marijampolė District Court decided the temporary protective measures application in the presence of the applicant, E.B., their lawyers and a child care specialist. Upon the recommendation of the latter, and given that the court hearing on the merits of the action was scheduled for 19 July, when deciding on the temporary protective measure the court also deemed it appropriate not to hear the children, to avoid causing them even more stress. The court acknowledged that when the applicant had allowed her husband to see their daughters for three hours on 4 June 2010, he had not returned them to her home. It urged the parents to arrange the return of the girls to their mother and to reach an agreement on how E.B. would contact them until the final court decision in the divorce and custody proceedings. However, each parent had their own conflicting opinions, which only served to worsen the strained relations between them. The court noted that both parents had the right to raise their children and have contact with them, and there was no information to suggest that E.B.’s communication with his daughters would cause them harm. Nor was there any information that the applicant was failing in her duties as a mother. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 376 §§ 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which required the courts to aim to protect the interests and rights of minors (see paragraph 61 below), and taking into account the earlier court rulings that the girls should temporarily reside with the applicant (see paragraph 11 above), the court ordered E.B. to return his daughters to their mother. Should he fail to do so, the applicant could contact a bailiff, who would then take the girls and their documents and hand them over to the applicant. Until the end of the divorce and custody proceedings, the applicant’s husband was granted contact with his daughters every other weekend from Saturday morning until Sunday evening, when he could collect them from the applicant’s place of residence and spend time with them. He was forbidden only from travelling outside Lithuania with them. On the same day, that is on 9 July 2010 the applicant was explained by the Marijampolė service that execution of court rulings belonged to the exclusive competence of a bailiff. Seven days later the court ruling became final and thus enforceable. Pursuant to the applicant’s request of 19 July 2010, the following day the Marijampolė District Court issued her a writ of execution, which the applicant then transmitted to the bailiff on 26 August 2010 (also see paragraph 46 below). 18. Between July and September 2010 the applicant asked that E.B. be fined for non-compliance with a court order requiring him to hand the children over. She also asked the court to prohibit him from seeing his daughters. In turn, E.B. asked that they remain with him, arguing that they refused to live with their mother. The Marijampolė service informed the court that from 1 September 2010 the girls started attending school in Marijampolė, and that situation had been caused by E.B.’s refusal to hand them over to the applicant. In September 2010, on the recommendation of the Marijampolė service, one of its psychologists saw the girls twice. She observed that they were attached to their father and had a good emotional connection with him. They also stated that they wished to stay with their father. The psychologist could not assess the emotional connection they had with their mother, because she could not be contacted. On 13 September 2010 the Kaunas service informed the court in writing that because the girls did not live in Kaunas, it did not know all the relevant circumstances of the case to assist the court in answering the question whether there were grounds for limiting E.B.’s paternal rights, in accordance with Article 3.180 of the Civil Code. 19. According to the Government, following complaints by the applicant alleging inactivity on the part of both the Kaunas and Marijampolė services, on 5 August 2010 the Ombudsperson for the Protection of Children’s Rights (Vaiko teisių apsaugos kontrolierius – hereinafter “the Ombudsperson”) issued a report. It noted that the relationship between the parents had broken down and that the applicant herself had been hostile. The report established that she instigated conflict, involved different State and municipal institutions in solving her relationship problems with her husband and gave little importance to her own personal responsibility, efforts and benevolence in looking for solutions in the best interests of her daughters. The report also indicated that she had applied to child care services and the police, submitted requests for assistance in taking the children, but as soon as they had provided her with opportunities she had refused them. It was recommended that she solve the questions of the girls’ place of residence and contact by mutual agreement with the father, and in the children’s best interests. 20. On 20 September 2010 the Marijampolė District Court held an oral hearing with the applicant, E.B., their lawyers and representatives of the Marijampolė and Kaunas services. Over the days that followed two more hearings were held and the girls were questioned by the judge in the absence of their parents and their lawyers. One of the girls testified that she wished to live with her father. The other testified that she missed her mother and wished that both parents lived together. She also stated that she otherwise preferred living with her father. 21. On 28 September 2010 the Marijampolė District Court dismissed E.B.’s request that the girls reside with him, and the applicant’s request to forbid him from seeing them. The decision was upheld by the Kaunas Regional Court on 22 November 2010. The courts acknowledged that E.B. had not avoided his duties as a father, but it had not been established that he could provide better living conditions for the girls or raise them better. Moreover, the girls’ place of residence had already been decided by an earlier court ruling and it was not in their best interests to change that place every couple of months. The girls were not yet mature enough for their wishes alone to suffice to change their place of temporary residence. 22. On 23 of September 2010 the principal of the school the girls had been attending in Marijampolė since the beginning of that month informed the child care authorities that the applicant had been visiting the girls at school and communicating with them, their teachers, the school administration and social workers on a regular basis. On one occasion a social worker observed one of the applicant’s meetings with the girls. They had talked to their mother warmly and sincerely, and had stated that they wished to live with both parents. The principal noted having been asked by E.B. to restrict the girls’ contact with the applicant, but he had not acceded to that request because he considered that the girls should see and communicate with both parents. On 3 February 2011, in reply to letters from the applicant asking for information about her daughters’ achievements at school and requesting that it arrange a meeting with her daughters on school premises, the principal informed the applicant that the school had always been open for parents. He noted having urged the applicant since autumn 2010 to come to school as often as possible, and to communicate with her daughters and their teachers. However, ‘the applicant had not heard that message (deja, Jūs šito raginimo neišgirdote)’. The principal stressed that the school was ready to help the applicant in every possible way if she showed initiative to see her daughters; no prior notification for her coming to school was necessary. For the school principal, the applicant’s pleas were particularly odd, because it was only because of her that the girls were not fully fledged members of the school as they were not on the list of pupils. The applicant was well aware of that but had not made any effort to settle the matter. The principal concluded that if the applicant was serious about her daughters’ future, he wanted her to think seriously and solve the problems which depended solely upon her. 23. Between October 2010 and April 2011 the Marijampolė District Court held at least five oral hearings, in which the applicant, E.B., their lawyers and representatives of child care services participated. The court granted a request by the applicant for a psychological assessment of the girls (see paragraph 25 below), had regard to letters from the institutions where the girls attended after-school activities, and questioned the principal and psychologist of the school. 24. At a court hearing on 29 April 2011 the principal testified to having admitted the girls to the school at E.B.’s request and in the girls’ best interests, and that they came to school ready for lessons and well-presented. They were well taken care of, felt well at school and wished to study there. The principal also stated that the applicant could have come to school and taken the girls with her at any time. However, the applicant came to school very seldom; the last time he had seen her there was in January 2011. The school psychologist testified that she had told both parents that they could ask her for psychological assistance, but neither parent had followed up with such a request. Without parental agreement or a referral by child care specialists, no psychological assistance could be provided. The psychologist also testified that the girls’ teachers had not contacted her with any particular concerns about the girls’ well-being. 25. In August 2011 experts from the Vilnius City Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry Department (Vaikų ir paauglių teismo psichiatrijos skyrius) examined the girls. The experts found in respect of both girls that it was not possible to establish which parent’s place of residence would best meet the girls’ interests, because equal communication with both parents, who were important to the girls, was important to them both. When observed with their father, the girls were positive, active and laughed a lot. Both girls’ connection with their father was “positive, warm and strong”. Their relationship with the mother was ambivalent and their feelings were torn (dominuoja prieštaringi (ir teigiami, ir neigiami) jausmai). Even so, there was no doubt that the mother was an important person for the girls. Having regard to the girls’ age, maturity and psychological particularities, they were not yet able to formulate and express their own opinions and views as regards which parent they should live with. The girls’ wish to live with their father was determined by objective factors, namely them living with him for more than a year and communication with their mother being insufficient. Unnatural hostility towards the mother had only traumatised them and parental alienation syndrome, enhanced by their father’s influence, could be seen in their behaviour. Lastly, both girls were attached to each other, and separating them would be traumatic. 26. In August 2011 the applicant declared her place of residence as Meckenheim, Germany. 27. On 4 October 2011 the applicant asked the Marijampolė District Court to hear the case in her absence. She maintained all her civil claims. Moreover, in the applicant’s words, “the forensic expertise having been performed, [paragraph 25 above] I consider that all the evidence in the case has been collected and examined, and that the case should be terminated immediately, and I therefore ask for it to be terminated in my absence because I am ill.” The applicant agreed to her lawyer representing her interests from that point forward. 28. On 5 October 2011 the Marijampolė District Court held an oral hearing with the applicant’s lawyer, E.B., his lawyer, and the child care authorities. During the hearing it came to light that the applicant had declared her place of residence as Germany, where she was expecting a child with another man. According to E.B.’s lawyer, those circumstances were relevant when deciding the girls’ place of residence, especially given the applicant’s initial accusation of the girls being taken to Germany by their father (see paragraph 10 above). The court deemed it appropriate to postpone the hearing, so that the applicant could be questioned. 29. Later that month the applicant’s lawyer provided the court with a medicate certificate issued in Meckenheim, about her client being at risk of premature birth if she experienced physical or psychological stress. The lawyer asked the court to hear the case without her client present, or to suspend the proceedings, until after the applicant had given birth. 30. On 24 October 2011 the court held an oral hearing without the applicant, but in the presence of her lawyer. She confirmed that her client had declared her place of residence as Germany, the father of her future child being a German national, but that she intended to return to Lithuania to live in Kaunas immediately after giving birth in Germany. The lawyer also confirmed that the applicant had not communicated with the girls during that school year. E.B.’s lawyer regretted that the applicant could not be questioned at the hearing. Relying on the forensic experts’ conclusions about parental alienation syndrome, heightened by E.B.’s attitude towards the applicant, the Kaunas service noted that it would be more in the girls’ interests to reside with their mother. It did not see the applicant’s pregnancy as a factor to be taken into account when deciding the girls’ place of residence. The service confirmed that the future child’s father was a German citizen, which suggested that the applicant would live in Germany. Even so, E.B. was a German citizen but lived in Lithuania. The Kaunas service also noted that the applicant had approached them for a referral to psychologists so that she could find contact with her daughters easier. A referral was given to her and, as far as the Kaunas service was aware, the applicant had visited the psychologists for assistance. The service was of the view that the applicant had tried to establish contact with her daughters, but had been unsuccessful. She had probably not visited them at school for a while to avoid traumatising them. 31. At the same hearing the Marijampolė service representative noted that it had known the girls and their family history since 2008, when disagreements between the applicant and E.B. had started. The girls really thought clearly and their minds had developed in accordance with their ages. The representative thought that the girls’ behaviour had been conditioned by their mother’s actions as she did not visit them often at school or show interest in their lives, and therefore no emotional connection between them had been formed. The girls had been heard by the court about a year ago, where they had expressed their wishes (see paragraph 20 above) – the court had to remember that moment and have regard to the girls’ opinion. Indeed, in 2006 the United Nations Children Rights’ Committee had reproached Lithuania for not always hearing and paying attention to the child’s opinion (see paragraph 65 below). The representative noted that no one could ignore the fact that it was not known where the applicant, who was currently in Germany, was about to live. It was submitted that the psychologists’ conclusions were contradictory (yra prieštaringos). The conclusions noted that E.B. was important to the girls; they had a warm, positive and stable relationship with him. When communicating with their father, the girls felt safe and were actively involved in shared activities. They could easily approach their father, hug him and tell him about their achievements at school, where they took prized places in mathematics competitions. The child care specialist emphasised that a child who was psychologically distressed could not have such achievements at school. The Marijampolė service underlined that the circumstances had changed and thus it would always inform the court that it would provide the last conclusion during the last court hearing. Having communicated with the school, the school administration and the teachers, the Marijampolė service was finally persuaded that it was better for the girls to stay in that environment, to attend school and have friends; at home they were also receiving all that was necessary. The applicant, however, did not approach the girls after certain court decisions but first ran to the institutions or called the police, thus traumatising the girls a lot. In the words of the child care specialist, the applicant had not attempted to first meet with the girls or establish contact with them, and had not put in any effort herself. It was odd that a mother would go without seeing her daughters for a couple of months and not ask if they were prepared for school. The Marijampolė service thus submitted that, in the light of the above considerations, E.B. could take care of the girls the best and provide them what they needed. To pull the girls out of the environment they were familiar with and where they had spent most of their time would cause them significant psychological harm. The girls could always choose to tell to their father later that they wish to live with their mother. At the end the Marijampolė service representative noted that, in her view, the child care specialists from Marijampolė had observed the girls more than the representatives from the Kaunas service. 32. On 8 November 2011 the Marijampolė District Court took a decision on the merits of the divorce and custody case. It observed that there was no information in the file to suggest that either parent was failing in their duties to raise their daughters or that their behaviour was immoral. Even so, they had not always acted with the children’s best interests in mind, because during the court proceedings neither parent had attempted to find a compromise as regards their daughters’ place of residence or their contact with them. The court emphasised that the children had to grow up in a safe environment they were used to. However, even though by a court order of 9 May 2010 the girls were to reside with their mother, the actual situation was that since 5 June 2010 they had been residing with their father. The girls themselves had expressed the wish to stay with him. The first-instance court thus held that although the father could have had some influence over the girls’ choice as to who they preferred to live with, it was not decisive. The girls had thus already stated on 11 June 2010 that they preferred living with their father (see paragraph 15 above). It was the court’s view that such a short time (seven days) between those two dates was not sufficient for the girls’ father to influence his daughters. It was thus clear that there was already then tension between the girls and their mother. 33. Lastly, the Marijampolė District Court noted that even though the applicant had declared her place of residence as Kaunas, since August 2011 she was also registered as living in Germany. For the court, the question where the father or mother would live with the children was irrelevant in any event because the girls spoke German; they had previously lived in Germany and thus could adjust to living there easily. What was essential when deciding the question of the girls’ residence was to ascertain who the children were more attached to, and which parent devoted more attention to their interests. The children’s wishes as to where to live could be disregarded only if they were against their interests. Given that there was nothing to suggest that either parent was neglecting their parental duties, the Marijampolė District Court deemed it most suitable to take into account the girls’ wish to live with their father. 34. The first-instance court also ordered the applicant to pay the girls’ father maintenance (60 euros (EUR) for each daughter per month) and set in place a contact order for the applicant to see her daughters. Even though both parents asked to see the children only two weekends per month and during the month of July, in accordance with Article 376 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court considered ex officio that such a time-frame would be too restrictive for the applicant to be able to build up contact with her daughters. A wider contact order, allowing the applicant contact not only during weekends but also State holidays and certain days during all school holidays was set in place. The court stressed to both parents their obligation to take care of the children and above all be an example to them. The court also divorced the applicant and her husband. 35. On 7 December 2011 the applicant appealed against the first-instance court’s decision. She contested the decision about the girls’ place of residence. Without explicitly asking that a hearing be held, she asked for a re-examination of the evidence and witnesses to be called and questioned. 36. By a letter of 5 March 2012, the applicant also asked the Kaunas Regional Court to admit in evidence letters postmarked between November 2010 and January 2011 she had sent to her daughters in Lithuania from Germany, which had been returned to her in the post. The applicant claimed that E.B. had thus interfered with her right to be in contact with her children. She relied on Article 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 59 below). 37. By a ruling of 22 March 2012 made in written proceedings, the Kaunas Regional Court left the lower court’s decision unchanged. The court noted at the outset that pursuant to Articles 321 and 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appeals had to be heard in written proceedings unless the court deemed an oral hearing indispensable. As regards the applicant’s request to have witnesses questioned, the court established that the applicant had not specified in her appeal what new circumstances essential for the case the requested witnesses could confirm, some of them having already been questioned at first instance. Nor had she explained why she had not submitted the request to the first-instance court. The court concluded that an oral hearing was not necessary, because the applicant had had the opportunity to point out all the circumstances necessary for an examination of the case to the first-instance court and also in her appeal. The appellate court also refused to admit documents related to the applicant’s correspondence with her daughters. According to it, those pieces of evidence had not been analysed in the first-instance court, which was a general requirement for evidence to be admitted in an appeal, or lodged with it. 38. As to the girls’ place of residence, the Kaunas Regional Court dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s plea that the first-instance court did not properly examine the evidence, which included the explanations by the child care authorities, psychologists’ reports, witness testimony and the Ombudsperson’s conclusions. On this last point the court observed the Ombudsperson’s conclusion of 5 August 2010 stating that the applicant was conflictive and involved various authorities in her and E.B.’s conflict, without giving importance to her own responsibility and good-will in finding the best solutions for the children. It also observed that the first-instance court had examined the forensic expert reports about the girls’ psychological state, where it was noted that they both wished to stay with their father. In addition, psychologists from the girls’ school and the school principal were questioned. The applicant’s lawyer herself admitted agreeing with the forensic expert reports, and did not ask for another expert examination to be conducted. 39. The Kaunas Regional Court also found that it was in the best interests of the children to stay with their father, who they had lived with since 5 June 2010. On that point it was also paramount that during the first-instance court hearing the girls had confirmed their wish to live with him. A fact on which the applicant had relied, that E.B. had prior convictions in Germany for sexual and drug-related offences committed in 1996 and 1998 did not have much significance for the case, because the convictions had expired in 2003. The applicant, for her part, had a criminal conviction in Lithuania for forgery of document and a criminal investigation against her for fraud had been terminated. What mattered was that she had left Lithuania for Germany; she had three addresses – in Kaunas, Marijampolė and in Germany, which she had indicated as places where she lived, which suggested that she in fact had no habitual place of residence. Moreover, the applicant’s contact with the girls was merely episodic, whereas the girls’ father took proper care of them and actively participated in raising them. The girls lived with their father, attended school and had suitable living conditions. The evidence as a whole allowed for the conclusion that there was a close connection between the girls and their father. There was no evidence in the case file to the effect that E.B. abused his parental rights, and it was for the applicant to prove the opposite, which she had not done. Moreover, under Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child had the right to be heard in all matters affecting him, which had been done in the present case. The appellate court also observed that in accordance with Article 2 of the aforementioned Convention and Article 3.156 of the Civil Code, both parents had equal rights and obligations towards their children. Accordingly, and contrary to the applicant’s suggestion that she was closer to the girls because of their gender, the gender of a parent could not be a factor which determined who a child should reside with. 40. As to temporary protective measures, the Kaunas Regional Court observed that, as a rule, they were aimed at guaranteeing compliance with a future court decision. Accordingly, the first-instance court, when adopting a decision after examining merits of the case, was not bound by earlier decisions on temporary protective measures. 41. Following a complaint by the applicant, on 1 June 2012 the Ombudsperson issued a report dismissing allegations by the applicant about the partiality of the Marijampolė service because of its failure to provide her with information and consultations. The Ombudsperson relied on the Court’s judgment in Mihailova v. Bulgaria (no. 35978/02, § 97, 12 January 2006), where it did not find a violation of Article 8, having found that irrespective of obstructions by the applicant’s former husband, the applicant’s own lack of understanding of the need for careful preparation as a precondition to effective enforcement of her custody rights played a significant role in the events. In the instant case, attempts had been made more than once to hand the children over to the applicant and meetings had been organised with psychologists, child care specialists and representatives of educational institutions as to enforcement of the court decisions to transfer the children. Moreover, the Ombudsperson had already examined the Marijampolė service’s work in February 2010, and did not find that it did not take action to help the applicant to have contact with her children. The service also correctly placed the responsibility for the well-being of the children on both parents. 42. On 5 September 2012 the principal of the girls’ school in Marijampolė issued a note stating that during the school year 2011/2012 the applicant had not visited the school. She did not come to school on 1 September 2012 either. 43. On 18 October 2012 the Ombudsperson dismissed the applicant’s repeated complaint accusing the Marijampolė service of failing in its duties to provide assistance and organise contact with the children. The Ombudsperson established that even though the contact order between the mother and the girls had been set in place as early as 8 November 2011 by the Marijampolė District Court, she had not yet tried to make use of it. Furthermore, the Marijampolė service had asked the applicant’s lawyers to meet at its premises, offered to inform E.B. of that meeting and asked the applicant’s lawyers for that purpose to choose a suitable date, but the applicant had not responded. For its part, the Kaunas service had also invited the applicant for a conversation so that she could express her wishes and preferences as to her contact with the girls, and so that the service could assist her. It was only when the applicant had not shown up that the Kaunas child care specialists had suggested to her lawyers that she communicate with the girls by letters via the Marijampolė child care specialists. It had also been indicated to the applicant that she had the opportunity to directly communicate with her daughters in the presence of a psychologist, and that could be discussed with the Marijampolė service. The girls’ school in Marijampolė had also informed the Ombudsperson that the applicant had started communicating with the girls by letters since December 2011; between December 2011 and April 2012 three letters from her had been received, though the girls had refused to accept the last one. The school had thus suggested that the applicant choose another means of communicating with her daughters and asked the child care specialists to provide facilities for that purpose. Given the child care authorities and the school’s suggestions for the applicant to communicate with her daughters directly (tiesiogiai), which the applicant had disregarded, it was not clear to the Ombudsperson why the applicant preferred to communicate with her daughters by letters. On this point the Ombudsperson pointed out that under Article 3.170 of the Civil Code parents who lived separately had the right and an obligation to communicate with their children and be involved in their upbringing; children, for their part, had a right to regular and direct contact with both parents, irrespective of their place of residence. 44. On 15 June 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. Without arguing that the appellate court’s decisions not to summon witnesses for examination and not to hold a hearing had affected the outcome of the litigation, she primarily challenged the lower courts’ assessment of the evidence, insisting that they had erred in concluding that living with their father was in the best interests of the children. She also asserted that E.B.’s previous convictions in Germany for crimes of sexual violence and drug-related offences were significantly weightier in terms of his moral values than her conviction in Lithuania for forgery of documents. The applicant was further dissatisfied with the appellate court’s refusal to admit in evidence documents related to her correspondence with her daughters, which she obtained after she had already lodged her appeal. In his written reply, E.B. argued that the lower courts had properly examined the entirety of the evidence. He submitted that the applicant had always known about his earlier convictions in Germany; however, they had expired a long time ago. It was unfair for her to bring up that issue now. E.B. also observed that the proceedings had been pending for more than two years. During that period the applicant had specified her claims and submitted requests to the court on more than one occasion. The Kaunas Regional Court’s acceptance to re-examine the evidence and question witnesses would have only delayed the proceedings. Given that the applicant had not asked for an oral hearing, the appellate court’s decision to pursue proceedings in writing had been reasonable. 45. In a final ruling of 14 December 2012, adopted in written proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that the child’s interests were the primary consideration when examining custody cases. The cassation court also relied on the Court’s judgment in Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 41615/07, § 139, ECHR 2010), which said that an in-depth examination of the entire family situation was necessary to achieve the best result for the child. For the Supreme Court, such a result had been achieved in the present case. The lower courts had analysed the level of attachment to each parent and established that the girls, who lived with the father, were fond of him. Those courts had also noted psychologists’ reports that the girls could entirely independently form their own opinion about which parent to live with, and had held that the children’s opinion was one of the criteria when evaluating the entirety of evidence, and the girls had expressed such a wish during the court hearing. Even though the fact that the girls lived with their father could influence their formation of a negative opinion about their mother, it had not been established that the mother was barred from communicating with them; to be interested in their lives and visit them at school could thus form a positive opinion about her and make their emotional bond stronger. The first-instance court had also issued a contact order and thus the applicant’s contact rights with her daughters had not been restricted. Even though the applicant had stated that she lived in Lithuania, the evidence showed that she had declared place of residence as Germany, where she had taken part in court proceedings so that the name of her third child could be registered. As to E.B.’s convictions in Germany, those offences had been committed in 1996 and 1998 and his convictions had expired a long time ago. There was no proof that he could have a negative impact on the girls. On the contrary, the girls studied well at school and took part in extracurricular activities. It followed that the courts had been correct in not giving particular weight to those convictions. Overall, it was thus in the best interests of the girls to stay with their father. Lastly, whilst noting that when refusing to admit in evidence new documents submitted by the applicant the appellate court had not explained whether they were relevant to the merits of the case, the Supreme Court held that this did not affect the overall lawfulness of the appellate court’s ruling. 46. After the Marijampolė District Court’s decision of 9 July 2010 stating that the girls should reside with the applicant became final, and following the applicant’s request of 26 August 2010 transmitting her the writ of execution, the bailiff took measures to enforce it (also see paragraph 17 in fine). Meetings were organised with the child care specialists, representatives of the girls’ school and psychologists. Both parents were involved in that process. 47. The first attempt to hand the girls over at their school in November 2010 failed because on that day the girls fell ill and did not go to school. The court then established that their absence was proved by medical certificates, and the court order for transfer did not specify where it would take place. Accordingly, the father could not be blamed for an unsuccessful transfer. 48. The next attempt to transfer the girls was made in January 2011, when it was decided that the girls would be handed over at their home. This attempt did not produce results because on that date the applicant was arrested on charges of forgery of documents. 49. The third attempt to hand over the girls was at their father’s home in February 2011. It failed because, even though the bailiff, child care specialists, police and both parents were present, neither girl wished to leave with their mother. During the transfer the applicant asked to be left alone in the room with the girls, and her wish was granted. However, even after that the girls expressed a clear wish not to leave with her. In the report about that attempted transfer the bailiff underlined that the transfer of a child could not be equated to the transfer of an object. Taking into account the clearly expressed wishes of the children, and to avoid psychological trauma and to protect the children’s interests, physical force could not be used in that situation. The child care authorities supported this argument. The bailiff’s recommendation, based on Article 771 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was that the manner of enforcing the court order for transfer should be changed to preserve the children’s interests. The bailiff’s letter specified that her findings could be appealed against to the Marijampolė District Court. The bailiff then also asked the Marijampolė District Court to examine how the court order for the girls’ transfer should be enforced without compromising their interests. 50. Eventually, by a decision of 20 June 2012 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings, because it had been decided that the girls should reside with their father (see paragraphs 39 and 45 above). 51. By a decision of 17 March 2011 in separate criminal proceedings, a court found E.B. guilty of failing to comply with the court order of 9 July 2010. He was fined approximately EUR 750 (2,600 Lithuanian litai). The court however dismissed a civil claim by the applicant for non-pecuniary damage, noting that the girls themselves had refused to go and reside with their mother. The court also noted that no evidence had been provided to prove the applicant’s contention that the children’s refusal to be handed over to their mother had been a direct consequence of E.B.’s actions. 52. Alleging that the girls’ father had had a negative influence on their daughters, and relying on the psychologists’ reports about parental alienation syndrome (see paragraph 25 above), on 8 September 2011 the applicant asked the prosecutor to start criminal proceedings in respect of E.B. for abusing his rights and duties as a parent (Article 163 of the Criminal Code, see paragraph 63 below). 53. By a decision of 16 September 2011, the prosecutor refused to initiate a pre-trial investigation. He noted that earlier that month Marijampolė child care specialists had visited E.B.’s home and the girls had eagerly communicated with them, without their father present. The girls felt comfortable and at ease; they had no demands. They had also explained that the applicant did not visit them or call. The prosecutor established that E.B. had not committed any unlawful acts in respect of his daughters. By a decision of 4 October 2011, the District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision.

5. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Vienna. 6. At the time of the events the applicant worked for the association “Asyl in Not”, which offers legal and social support to asylum seekers and refugees. 7. In 2005, an amendment to a number of laws concerning the status of foreigners and of asylum seekers and concerning relevant proceedings (Fremdenrechtspaket 2005) was drafted and adopted by Parliament. The amendments entered into force on 1 January 2006. 8. On 31 December 2006 the then Federal Minister for Interior Affairs, L.P., died unexpectedly of an aneurysm at the age of 55. 9. On 1 January 2007 the applicant published a statement on the association’s website entitled “One less. What’s coming now?” (“Eine weniger. Was kommt danach?”). It continued: “The good news for the New Year: L.P., Minister for torture and deportation, is dead.” (“Die gute Meldung zum Jahresbeginn: L.P., Bundesministerin für Folter und Deportation, ist tot”) After referring to some specific individual stories of asylum seekers, the text stated further that “Mrs P. was a desk war criminal just like many others there have been in the atrocious history of this country: completely desensitised, indifferent to the consequences of their laws and regulations, the compliant instrument of a bureaucracy contaminated with racism. No decent human is shedding tears over her death.” (“L.P. war eine Schreibtischtäterin, wie es viele gab in der grausamen Geschichte dieses Landes; völlig abgestumpft, gleichgültig gegen die Folgen ihrer Gesetze und Erlässe, ein willfähiges Werkzeug einer rassistisch verseuchten Beamtenschaft. Kein anständiger Mensch weint ihr eine Träne nach.”). The applicant concluded the text by suggesting that their goal for the New Year was to fight for a new minister who would make good the damage done by L.P. so that Austria could return to being a country welcoming asylum seekers and a place where human rights were respected. 10. G.P., the late Minister’s husband, filed a private prosecution (Privatanklage) for defamation against the applicant and the association. 11. On 19 September 2007 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien) convicted the applicant of defamation in respect of the above-quoted passages of the statement and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of EUR 1,200. Half of the fine was suspended for three years. It dismissed G.P.’s request for recognition of the association’s liability for its employee’s actions. 12. The court found that the average reader would understand the relevant passages of the statement to mean that L.P. had ordered or tolerated the torture pending expulsion or the deportation of detainees and had violated human rights. The word “torture”, in particular, implied the intentional infliction of physical or psychological suffering. An average reader would also place the word “deportation” (Deportation) in the context of the historical events under the national-socialist regime which forcefully deported segregated groups of people to ghettos and camps to subject them to forced labour or extermination. The statement in question suggested that L.P. exercised her political function in a particularly despicable way, that she was indifferent to officials’ criminal abuse of authority in relation to asylum seekers and that her actions were motivated by racist, sadistic, xenophobic and national-socialist attitudes. The publication of the statement had triggered considerable reaction from the media and the public. The applicant had been criticised as tactless and disrespectful. In response thereto, on 9 January 2007, the applicant published in a daily newspaper a reply in which he stated that his comments had been directed solely towards L.P. and he apologised to her family members, who were not responsible for the late Minister’s inhumane policies. 13. The Regional Court acknowledged that a criminal charge of defamation was at odds with the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Convention. It found that the voicing of opinions by refugee associations criticising politicians and their legislative projects represented an important corrective element and that the limits of acceptable criticism were particularly widely drawn in the context of the present case. However, in the court’s opinion, the published statement overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism. The legislative background to the amendment of the laws governing foreigners and asylum seekers and the fact that criticism was allowed to be shocking, still could not justify positioning L.P. in a national-socialist and racist context and suggesting that she had tolerated the intentional physical ill-treatment of detainees pending expulsion or “deportations”. Such accusations against the then only recently passed away L.P – together with the acclamation of her death and the call on “decent” people not to mourn her passing – clearly went beyond the limits of acceptable criticism in a democratic society. Moreover, the allegations made by the applicant had not been proven to be true, nor had he shown any journalistic diligence in that regard. 14. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law and fact, and also appealed against the sentence. 15. On 7 May 2008 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Wien) dismissed his appeal. Referring to the reasoning of the first-instance court, it conceded that the word “deportation” nowadays had acquired the additional meaning of “expulsion or removal” and was not only used in the context of the national-socialist regime, but also in the context of the forced expulsion of foreigners. However, the context of the word in which it had been used (“a desk war criminal just like many others there have been in the atrocious history of this country”) acted as a reminder of the national-socialist history of the country. Therefore, even though the statements at issue were political value judgments (“politische Wertungen”), the applicant had not produced any proof of a factual basis for his allegations. The applicant had further argued that, following the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and of the domestic courts with regard to Article 10, the impugned statement was covered by freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal, however, found that even such case-law did not provide carte blanche for the applicant to make comparisons with the national-socialist regime without any factual basis. 16. That decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 June 2008. 17. On 7 November 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the renewal of the criminal proceedings (“Erneuerung des Strafverfahrens”) pursuant to Article 363a of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the aim of having the proceedings re-opened and the conviction set aside. 18. On 14 October 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the request. It stated that the admittedly broad limits of tolerable criticism in the political discourse did not cover excessive value judgments without any factual basis. Statements made in even heated political conflicts needed to respect a minimum of decency and moderation. In the present case the Supreme Court found that the evaluation by the courts had rightly led to the conclusion that the text in question justified the limitation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The value judgment suggesting criminal behaviour on the part of L.P. had no factual basis. The courts had not misjudged the considerable public interest in the discussion concerning migration and asylum policy. However, the applicant’s statements had not contributed to that public discussion, since they were directed at defaming and discrediting the late Minister. The court further noted that the sanction imposed was, in view of the disrespectful statements and their temporal proximity to L.P.’s death, appropriate and even moderate. 19. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 10 November 2009.

10. The applicants were born in 1932 and 1933 respectively and live in Pruszków. 11. The applicants owned a plot of land situated in Pruszków, near Warsaw. In 1982 the applicants were informed by the local authorities that, pursuant to a local zoning plan, their land was to be expropriated as a construction of dwelling buildings was planned in its place. 12. The applicants requested the Pruszków City Council to be compensated by another plot of land. Their son also filed a request asking that a plot of land be allocated to him. By a letter of 16 May 1986 the Pruszków City Council informed the applicants that their request could not be granted. On 22 April 1987 the applicants' son was informed that his request to be allocated a plot of land within the Pruszków community was viewed favourably by the Social Commision (Komisja Społeczna) but could only be processed after the expropriation of his parents' plot. In 1987 the expropriation procedure commenced. In their letters the local authorities confirmed that after the expropriation of the applicants' land an allocation of a plot of land within the Pruszków community to the applicants' son would become possible. 13. Eventually the applicants' land was not expropriated but the applicants consented to a contract of sale. On 8 December 1987 they transferred ownership of their land to the State Treasury represented by the Pruszków City Council. They received the amount. 14. Following the sale they repeatedly inquired about the allocation of building land within the municipality but no steps were taken in order for the allocation to become effective and no decision as to the allocation was given. 15. In 1990 the applicants' son was informed by the City Council that the allocation of plots of land within the community had been conducted in violation of the law and in disregard of the principles of transparency. Therefore, the entire process was to be reviewed. 16. On 26 November 1991 the applicants instituted proceedings against the State Treasury represented by the Pruszków City Council. They requested the Pruszków District Court “to oblige the Pruszków City Council to allot a plot of land to their son, as promised”. The Pruszków District Court transferred the matter to the Warsaw Regional Court which rejected the claim finding that only the administrative authorities had jurisdiction in matters concerning expropriations and granting replacement plots. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision on 10 February 1993. 17. On 26 August 1993 the applicant sent a letter of complaint to the Ministry of Justice. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Justice transferred the letter to the Warsaw Regional Court. That court recognised that the applicants' action should be interpreted as an action to revoke the contract of sale with the Pruszków City Council of 8 December 1987 as they had consented to it on the mistaken belief that the City Council would allocate a comparable plot of land to their son. On 15 December 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court decided that, in view of fact that the value of the claim amounted to PLN (old) 10,000,000, a district court should examine the matter. The case was transferred to the Pruszków District Court. Subsequently, the applicants extended their claim and, on 18 August 1994, the Pruszków District Court transferred the case to the Warsaw Regional Court. On 18 October 1994 the case was transferred back to the Pruszków District Court and that court examined the case. On 3 June 1996 the first instance judgment was delivered. The court allowed the applicants' claim finding that they had indeed acted on the assumption that the sale of their property had been the condition for the allocation of a new plot of land to their son and that that assumption had been prompted and maintained by the Pruszków City Council. 18. The State Treasury, represented by the Pruszków City Council, filed an appeal. On 6 February 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for reconsideration. The Warsaw Regional Court found that not all circumstances of the case had been examined by the first-instance court and that although the applicants had indeed acted upon the promise that the applicants' son would be allocated a plot of land, no time limit had been set for that. Therefore, the trial court was instructed, in particular, to examine whether the applicants' son could still be allocated a plot of land. 19. Having reconsidered the case, on 26 February 1998 the Pruszków District Court dismissed the applicants' action. It found that the transfer of the applicants' plot of land to the State had been inevitable since it had been planned for expropriation. Thus, the applicants could not validly claim that they had relied on the promises that their son would be allocated another plot of land and that they had therefore been unduly induced to sign the contract. 20. The applicants appealed. 21. On an unspecified date the applicants tried to obtain free legal aid in the proceedings. By a letter of 23 June 1998 the Polish Bar Association informed the applicants that it was not competent to grant legal aid and that such a request should be addressed to a court. On 29 June 1998 the applicants sent a letter to the President of the District Court in Pruszków requesting free legal aid in the proceedings. On 11 September 1998 the court granted free legal aid to the applicants and on 21 September 1998 it addressed the Warsaw Bar to appoint an advocate for the applicants. Following this decision, on 6 October 1998 the Warsaw Bar Association appointed advocate A.Z. as the applicants' ex officio attorney. Apparently, advocate A.Z. could not represent the applicants. On 3 Nobember 1998 A.Z. informed the court that she did not wish to represent them. The Warsaw Bar Association accepted this argument and discharged A.Z. from the representation of the applicants. On 3 December 1998, the Warsaw Bar Association appointed advocate G.P-R. to represent the applicants. On 31 December 1998 G.P.-R. sent a letter to the Warsaw Bar requesting the Bar to discharge her of her duties. 22. On 7 January 1999 the applicants wrote a letter to the President of the Pruszków District Court in which they complained that despite the court's decision granting them legal aid none of the attorneys appointed so far expressed any interest in their case. In response, the President of the Pruszków District Court instructed the applicants that they should address the Warsaw Bar Association directly. At the same time, the President also undertook to draw attention of the Warsaw Bar Association to the applicants' problem. On 18 January 1999 the applicants wrote to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court. They stated that their case was about to be examined by the second‑instance court for the second time and that they were at a significant disadvantage in comparison with the defendants, the State Treasury, which was represented by a lawyer. 23. On 5 February 1999 the Warsaw Bar Association appointed advocate K.B. to represent the applicants. He met with the applicants in March 1999 and represented them at the hearing held before the appellate court on 25 May 1999. On that date the Warsaw Regional Court issued a judgment dismissing the applicants' appeal. The applicants were informed by that court that a cassation appeal could be filed. 24. After the hearing the lawyer instructed the applicants to take steps in order to have the judgment with its written grounds served on them. 25. On 25 May 1999 the applicants themselves requested the court to serve on them the judgment with its written grounds. 26. On 23 September 1999 the applicants were duly served with a copy of the judgment together with its written grounds. 27. In a letter to the court of 30 September 1999 the applicants complained about certain errors in the judgment. Subsequently, the court corrected certain clerical errors in the written grounds of the judgment and sent it to the applicants by registered post. The applicants did not collect it from the post office. 28. On 23 October 1999 the applicants sent a registered letter to advocate K.B. asking him to indicate when he could be available for consultation or to call them back. There was no reply to this letter. 29. On 22 November 1999 the applicants wrote to the Warsaw Bar Association asking for assistance. They complained that since the date of the hearing before the appellate court they could not reach advocate K.B. 30. On 30 November 1999 the applicants wrote to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court stating that they could not reach their ex officio lawyer and asking for instructions. In response, the applicants were informed that the President of the Court did not have any supervisory powers in respect of ex officio attorneys and that they should contact the Warsaw Bar Association. The President of the Regional Court also stated that he had obliged the President of the Civil Division at that court to draw the attention of the Warsaw Bar to the problem submitted by the applicants. 31. On 23 December 1999 the applicants sent a letter to the Warsaw Bar Association, complaining about the lawyer's failure to contact them and asking for assistance in their case. 32. On 5 January 2000 the applicants sent another registered letter to K.B. asking for urgent contact in view of the impossibility to reach him. They stated that they had unsuccessfully tried to get in touch with him for several months as his cellular phone had been changed and the fixed phone did not reply. 33. On 12 January 2000 the judgment of 23 May 1999 was sent to the lawyer's office by registered post. It was served on K.B. on 21 January 2000. 34. On 27 January 2000 the applicants and the lawyer met at his office. They were informed during this meeting that there were no grounds for filing a cassation appeal in their case. 35. By a letter of 28 January 2000 the applicants informed the President of the Warsaw Regional Court of the meeting held on 27 January 2000. They submitted that K.B. had given them the judgment, had informed them that there were no grounds on which he could lodge a further appeal against it and suggested that they sign a declaration that they wished to give up pursuing the case. 36. On 15 February 2000 they sent a further letter to the Warsaw Regional Bar Association, in which they complained that the legal aid lawyer had met with them “seven months after the termination of the proceedings” and informed them that he saw no grounds to pursue the case any further. 37. On 1 March 2000 the Secretary of the Warsaw Bar Association informed the applicants that K.B. had responded to the charges brought against him in the applicants' complaint lodged on 22 November 1999. According to his explanations, there were no grounds for lodging a cassation appeal in the applicants' case and the applicants had been informed thereof. The Secretary informed the applicants that if an ex officio attorney had found no grounds on which to lodge a cassation appeal, the Bar Association would not appoint another lawyer to do so.

4. The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Štip. 5. On 17 November 1986 the applicant and three other persons instituted civil proceedings before the then Štip Municipal Court (Општински Суд Штип) for annulment of a care agreement (“the agreement”) (договор за доживотна издршка) concluded on 7 December 1979 between the applicant’s late father and his step-mother (“the defendant”). They maintained that the applicant’s late father had been in a fit condition and that he had sufficient financial means to take care of himself and that, accordingly, there had been no need for the agreement under which, the defendant had been granted four hundred golden liras, a priceless ancient icon and a land. 6. On 25 June 1987 the Štip Municipal Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim and annulled the agreement. It declared, inter alia, that the icon would be included in the applicant’s late father’s inheritance, but it dismissed the claim concerning the golden liras. That decision was served on the applicant on 3 March 1988. 7. On 14 March 1988 both parties appealed. 8. On 29 September 1989 the then Štip District Court (Окружен суд) dismissed the appeals and upheld the lower court’s decision. 9. On 25 September 1990 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law (ревизија) submitted on 19 December 1989. It remitted the case for a renewed consideration since the first-instance court had not given sufficient reasons for its decision. 10. The proceedings resumed on 19 June 1991. Of four hearings fixed before the first-instance court, none was postponed upon the applicant’s request. 11. On 14 October 1992 the Štip Municipal Court gave the same decision as on 25 June 1987 in which it established that the applicant’s father had been amongst the richest people in his village; that he had been in a fit condition and that, by entering into the agreement, the defendant had acquired considerable interest (значителна имотна корист) which had not been in compliance with the then State order (општествено уредување). It dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning the golden liras since there had been no evidence that the applicant’s father had been in possession of any. 12. On 25 December 1992 the applicant appealed. On 6 February 1993 he submitted observations in reply to the defendant’s appeal, together with an addendum to his appeal. 13. On 8 October 1993 the Štip District Court set aside the first-instance court’s decision since it had not complied with the Supreme Court’s instructions. 14. The proceedings resumed on 25 January 1994. Eight hearings were held before the first-instance court, of which none was adjourned upon the applicant’s request. 15. On 8 December 1994 the Štip Municipal Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim. It declared that only the icon be included in his late father’s inheritance and dismissed the claim for annulment of the agreement. It further reiterated its earlier findings as to the golden liras. The decision was served on the applicant on 13 October 1995. 16. On 16 October 1995 the applicant appealed. 17. On 20 March 1996 the Štip District Court overturned the decision and decided the case itself. It declared the agreement null and void, but considered it as having been concluded as a gift contract (договор за подарок). It upheld the remainder of the first-instance court’s decision. 18. On 2 July 1996 the defendant filed an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court. 19. On 9 December 1998 the Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s appeal and quashed the District Court’s decision. It further instructed that court to establish whether the agreement had been concluded in a statutory form. 20. On 14 April 2000 the Štip Court of Appeal remitted the case for re-examination before the first-instance court. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 April 2002. 21. Between 11 February 2003 and 20 April 2004 the first-instance court scheduled five hearings, of which one was adjourned because of the applicant’s fault. During that time, the applicant lodged four submissions before the court. 22. On 20 April 2004 the Štip Court of First Instance partially upheld the applicant’s claim - it declared that the agreement be invalid and considered it as having been concluded as a gift contract. 23. On 24 February 2005 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld the defendant’s appeal of 10 May 2004 and remitted the case for re-consideration. 24. On 24 June 2005 the Štip Court of First Instance declared the applicant’s claim as withdrawn, as he had not appeared in court despite being duly summoned. It so ruled as the case concerned a dispute of minor value. 25. On 24 January 2006 the Štip Court of Appeal set aside that decision arguing that the case could not be regarded as a dispute of minor value. 26. On 15 June 2006 the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim for annulment of the agreement finding that the latter had met the statutory requirements. That decision was given after a hearing fixed for 23 May 2006 had been adjourned due to the applicant’s absence. 27. On 21 August 2006 the applicant appealed. 28. On 15 March 2007 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the first-instance court’s decision. 29. On 23 April 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. Proceedings before that court are still pending.

7. The applicant, a farmer living in Lustenau (Austria), owns, inter alia, parcels of land which, by an ordinance (Verordnung) issued by the Vorarlberg Regional Government (Landesregierung), were registered as protected wetland in 1990 (Ordinance No. 1990/40 of the Regional Law Gazette). 8. On 24 July 1991 the applicant filed a request with the Vorarlberg Regional Government for an exemption permit (Ausnahmebewilligung) from the above ordinance in order to install a drainage system as he intended to cultivate and exploit his land. 9. On 2 August 1991 the Landscape Protection Officer (Landschaftsschutzanwalt), on 5 August 1991 the Landscape Protection Board (Naturschau) and on 29 August 1991 the Agricultural Chamber (Landwirtschaftskammer) all submitted comments on the applicant's request which were communicated to him on 6 September 1991. Only the opinion of the Agricultural Chamber was in favour of the applicant's request. 10. On 17 September, 1 and 31 October 1991 the applicant filed observations with the Vorarlberg Regional Government. On 20 November 1991 the opinion of an official expert for landscape protection (Amtssachverständiger für Natur- und Landschaftsschutz) was communicated to the applicant who, on 4 December 1991, filed his comments. 11. On 10 April 1992 the Vorarlberg Regional Government refused to grant an exemption permit. 12. On 27 May 1992 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). The applicant complained, inter alia, that the ordinance on which the refusal of the exemption permit was based was unlawful. 13. On 14 June 1993 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case as it lacked any prospects of success, and transferred it to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 14. On 29 November 1993 the applicant supplemented his complaint and requested the Administrative Court to hold a hearing and an on-site inspection, in the presence of a further expert to be appointed by the Administrative Court. As reason for his request he stated that such a hearing would show that the arguments given by the Regional Government in its decision were not correct. 15. On 4 January 1994 the Vorarlberg Regional Government submitted their comments on the applicant's complaint (Gegenschrift). 16. On 17 March 1997 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It found that it had not been in dispute between the parties that the parcels of land at issue were subject to Ordinance No 1990/40. Accordingly, this land could only be used in the traditional manner. Cultivating, grazing, draining or using chemical fertilisers was prohibited. An exemption from these limitations could be granted if the interests of landscape protection were not seriously and permanently harmed and other interests, in particular agricultural ones, prevailed. Thus, if the interests of landscape protection were seriously and permanently harmed, it was no longer necessary to consider the interests of agriculture. In refusing the request the authority had essentially relied on the report by the expert on landscape protection. This expert had explained in detail which animals and plants would have been endangered by the measures envisaged by the applicant. The report had been communicated to the applicant who had been given the opportunity to react. The applicant, however, merely disputed the findings of the expert and failed to submit any scientifically valid argument. In such circumstances, the Administrative Court concluded, the authority's decision had neither been unreasonable, nor the proceedings defective. As regards the complaint that the ordinance had been unlawful, the Administrative Court found that in view of the fact that the Constitutional Court had declined to deal with the applicant's case for lack of prospect of success and that the applicant has not submitted any fresh arguments as regards the alleged unlawfulness of that ordinance, it did not see any reason to apply to the Constitutional Court for the opening of proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the ordinance. The Administrative Court had neither held the requested hearing nor appointed the requested expert. It did not give any reasons why it considered that neither the hearing nor the appointment of a further expert was necessary. 17. On 1 April 1997 the decision was served upon the applicant's counsel.

5. The applicants were born in 1927 and 1936 respectively and live in Písek. 6. On 16 January 2002 a certain S., the applicants' neighbour, received a building permit to build an apartment building. 7. The applicants appealed against the permit, and on 23 April 2002 the Písek District Office (okresní úřad) partly modified it. The District Office did not hold a hearing. 8. On 29 April 2002 the applicants, through their legal representative, filed an action against the administrative decision (žaloba proti správnímu rozhodnutí) with the České Budějovice Regional Court (krajský soud), requesting, at the same time, postponement of the building of the flats 9. In a decision of 23 May 2002 the Regional Court invited the applicants to give reasons, within ten days, for their request for the building permit to be suspended. The court also provided the applicants with the following notice: “The court invites the party to the procedure to clarify whether he agrees to it proceeding without a public hearing ... on the basis of the documents submitted by the parties (Article 250f § 1 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure). If no reply to this notice is received within the statutory time-limit, the court will assume that the party to the procedure does not oppose the court deciding without a hearing (Article 250f § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).” 10. The applicants were represented in the proceedings by counsel on the basis of a procedural power of attorney (procesní plná moc) and the decision was served on him on 24 May 2002. Apparently, the representative's son collected the court's decision instead of the representative himself. No reply was sent to the court within the fifteen-day time-limit. 11. On 14 June 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' action. It did not hold a public hearing, assuming that the applicants, not having responded to the court's notice, agreed to such a procedure. 12. On 27 August 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) alleging, inter alia, a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Articles 35 and 38 of the Charter. They further requested that Article 250a of the Code of Civil Procedure be repealed. 13. In her written observations of 3 October 2002, the presiding judge at the Regional Court submitted that the court had dealt with the arguments the applicants had put forward in their action and had applied Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure, having informed the applicants' legal representative about their procedural rights and duties in conformity with that provision. 14. On 5 December 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), without holding a public hearing, rejected the applicants' appeal as manifestly ill-founded. It included the written observations of the presiding judge at the Regional Court on the applicants' constitutional appeal in its summary of the facts. The court found that the Regional Court had reviewed the decision of the District Office of 23 April 2002, had rightly proceeded under Article 250f § 1b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and had exhaustively dealt with all the arguments raised by the applicants after having interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of national law. 15. On 6 September 2007, the Ministry of Justice rejected the applicant's request for damages pursuant to Act no. 82/1998.

9. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Graz. 10. On 6 May 2000 the Graz Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention on suspicion of attempted sexual coercion (geschlechtliche Nötigung). The court based the suspicion against the applicant on the statement of the victim, who had identified the applicant in an identity parade. Further, it considered that, given the applicant's criminal record, there was a risk that he might commit another offence similar to the one of which he was suspected (Tatbegehungsgefahr). 11. On 19 May 2000 the Graz Regional Court, after a hearing held in the presence of the public prosecutor, the applicant and his defence counsel, ordered that the applicant's pre-trial detention should continue. Referring to the testimony of the victim, it found that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. Further, there was a risk that he might commit another offence similar to the one of which he was suspected. The court stated that the applicant had nine previous convictions, mainly for property-related offences, but recently also for violent crimes. The court found that, in the light of the applicant's recidivism and his character, the prolongation of his pre-trial detention was reasonable. The applicant appealed against this decision. 12. On 7 June 2000 the Graz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), sitting in private, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Regional Court's decision. 13. On 19 July 2000 the Graz Regional Court, after holding a hearing in the presence of the parties, dismissed an application for the applicant's release and ordered the continuation of his pre-trial detention. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 14. On 20 July 2000 the applicant lodged another application for release. He stressed that there were no reasons to maintain his pre-trial detention. 15. On 26 July 2000 the public prosecutor's office (Staatsanwaltschaft) filed the bill of indictment. The applicant appealed against it. 16. On 2 August 2000 the Graz Regional Court, having held a hearing in the presence of the parties, ordered that the applicant's pre-trial detention should continue. 17. On 7 August 2000 the applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted that there was no reasonable suspicion against him as the testimony of the only witness for the prosecution had been contradictory. 18. On 17 August 2000 the Graz Court of Appeal, sitting in private, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the bill of indictment and the appeals against the Regional Court's decisions of 19 July 2000 and 2 August 2000. It found that there was no doubt about the credibility of the witness and that there was therefore a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. Further, it upheld the Regional Court's repeated finding that reasons for detention on remand (Haftgründe) existed. 19. On 18 September 2000 the applicant lodged a fundamental rights complaint (Grundrechtsbeschwerde) with the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) against this decision. He submitted that there was no strong suspicion against him and that there were no reasons to maintain the detention on remand. 20. On 16 October 2000 the Supreme Court, sitting in private, dismissed the complaint. It found that there was no doubt about the credibility of the witness and that reasons for the applicant's detention on remand subsisted. 21. On 24 October 2000 the Regional Court, sitting with two professional and two lay judges, held a public hearing, convicted the applicant of attempted sexual coercion and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. 22. On 8 March 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's plea of nullity. 23. On 8 May 2001 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant, but allowed one lodged by the public prosecutor and increased the term of imprisonment to two years and six months.

4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Astrakhan. 5. As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to social benefits. As the authorities had failed to provide the benefits in full, the applicant brought four civil actions. 6. On 3 June 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan awarded the applicant arrears, fixed a new amount of periodic payments, and ordered that in future this amount should be adjusted for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 1 August 2003, and was enforced in September–October 2003. 7. On 3 June 2004 the district court awarded the applicant arrears. This judgment became binding on 20 August 2004, and was enforced in January–July 2005. 8. On 30 August 2004 the district court ordered a local authority to provide the applicant with a decent at. This judgment became binding on 28 September 2004. From November 2004 to May 2005 the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending supervisory-review proceedings requested by the local authority. In October 2005 the local authority offered the applicant a at, but he refused it considering it too small to house his family. On a bailiff’s request, on 7 February 2006 the district court specified that the at was not meant for the applicant’s family members. In July 2006 the local authority offered the applicant another at, and on 28 September 2006 he accepted it. 9. On 24 October 2005 the district court awarded the applicant arrears and upgraded periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 7 November 2005, and was partly enforced in December 2005. In March–April 2006 the bailiff twice returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant, because the judgment had to be executed by the social authority directly. On the applicant’s request, on 6 February 2007 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review and ordered a rehearing.

5. The applicant, Mr Marian Sobczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and who lives in Zabrze, Poland. 6. On 7 June 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an organised criminal gang, tax fraud, perjury and other related offences. 7. On 9 June 2006 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. That decision was justified by the strong evidence against the applicant, the gravity of the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the penalty which could be imposed if convicted. In addition, the court relied on the risk that the applicant would induce witnesses to give false testimony and also go into hiding if released. The latter ground was justified in the light of the fact that the applicant did not have a fixed residence prior to his arrest. 8. It appears that the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against the above detention order was dismissed on 23 June 2006. 9. Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended by the decisions of the Katowice District Court issued on 25 August, 24 November and 18 December 2006, 19 February, 25 April and 18 June 2007 and by the decisions of the Gliwice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) issued on 20 September and 27 December 2007 and 25 March 2008. 10. The domestic courts relied on the original grounds for the applicant’s detention. In addition it was noted that the proceedings were complex and involved a large number of witnesses and voluminous evidence. The investigating authorities had to obtain expert reports on accountancy, finance and forensics. Lastly, it was noted that new aspects of the alleged criminal activities of the applicant were being revealed in the course of the progressing investigation. 11. On 22 April 2008 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant and his two alleged accomplices with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was indicted of numerous counts of tax fraud, money laundering and perjury, allegedly committed within an organised criminal gang. 12. The first hearing took place on 23 October 2008. It appears that since then the trials have been taking place once a month or more frequently. 13. Pending trial, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Katowice Regional Court’s decisions of 5 May and 5 November 2008. 14. The applicant or his lawyer challenged a number of decisions to extend his detention. It appears that an interlocutory appeal was not brought against seven of those decisions. The interlocutory appeals lodged by the applicant’s lawyer against the decisions of 25 March, 5 May and 5 November 2008 were rejected by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 4 June 2008 and two unspecified dates respectively. Likewise, the applicant’s request for release was rejected by the Katowice Regional Court on 21 July 2008. 15. On 6 March 2009 the Katowice Regional Court released the applicant from detention, placing him under police supervision (dozór policyjny). The court considered that keeping the applicant in detention was no longer necessary since the majority of witnesses had already been examined by the trial court and in the light of the fact that the applicant had been recently registered at a fixed residence address. 16. It appears that the criminal proceedings against him are currently pending. 17. In parallel to his pre-trial detention subject of the instant application, the applicant served two separate prison sentences imposed on him by a competent criminal court. The two prison terms amounted to one year, six months and nineteen days. And thus from 2 March 2007 until 31 July 2008 the applicant was serving a sentence imposed on him by the Wieluń District Court in its judgment of 5 February 2007 and from 8 September until 28 October 2008 the applicant was serving a sentence, which was imposed on him by the same court in its decision of 28 July 2008.

5. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Chişinău. 6. On 8 March 2008 at around 4.40 p.m. the applicant’s seventeen-year-old son (V.) died after falling from one of the common-use balconies in an apartment block. 7. The police opened a preliminary inquiry into the causes of V.’s death, the most likely explanation being suicide. 8. On 8 March 2008 the investigator in charge of the case (F.) ordered a medical expert report in order to establish precisely the cause of death, the presence and origin of any injuries on V.’s body and whether there was any trace of alcohol or narcotic drugs in his blood. That report was completed on 10 March 2008 and found that V. had died from severe injuries caused by his fall; no traces of alcohol or narcotic drugs had been found in his blood. 9. Some fifteen persons were questioned as witnesses during the following three months. According to the applicant, some of the witnesses mentioned that V. had talked to two men on the day of his death. Three witnesses (B.A., B.O. and S.V.) allegedly stated that they had seen a young man and a young woman exiting the building and leaving the place in a hurry, taking a taxi shortly after V. had fallen. The applicant also stated that her son had been contacted on his mobile phone number by persons unknown to her and that her son had been upset after these discussions and had destroyed his subscriber identity module (SIM) card. She confirmed her son’s phone number and asked the prosecution to verify who had called him. She also stated that someone had visited her son the evening before the incident and had run away when she went out to see what was going on. 10. On 24 March 2008 F. proposed that no criminal investigation be initiated since there was no evidence that any offence had been committed, V. having committed suicide. On 4 July 2008 a prosecutor of the Ciocana prosecutor’s office decided not to initiate a criminal investigation. 11. On 1 August 2008 the applicant challenged that decision before a superior prosecutor. She stated that witnesses had not been questioned in respect of their allegation that they had seen two young persons exiting the building in a hurry immediately after the incident and that no one had asked the relevant mobile phone company to provide information about the phone calls made to her son prior to his death. Moreover, two assistants in a nearby shop had claimed that they had seen V. in their shop some hours prior to his death and that he had fainted there, and had then been taken away by two young men. 12. On 18 August 2008 a supervising prosecutor annulled the decision of 4 July 2008 as having been taken prematurely without considering other possible causes of death, such as murder by pushing V. from above or provoking him into committing suicide. The investigator was ordered to question the applicant and the witnesses identified by her. 13. After that date, the preliminary inquiry was extended on many occasions at the request of investigator F. On 12 December 2008 F. proposed that no investigation be initiated. It appears that this proposal was rejected by a superior prosecutor on an unknown date, since F. made similar proposals on 4 February and 29 April 2009. Both times a prosecutor accepted that no investigation should be initiated, but each time a supervising prosecutor found the decision premature and ordered a re-examination of the material by the investigator. The prosecution adopted a further decision not to initiate a criminal investigation on 11 May 2009. 14. On 17 September 2009 the investigating judge of the Ciocana District Court annulled the prosecutor’s decision of 11 May 2009, finding that the preliminary inquiry conducted before that date had been superficial and “with unexplained omissions”. The investigating authority had not established the place from which V. had jumped or had been pushed, or from what height, and a number of actions that the investigator had requested be taken by various authorities had not been fully carried out. Similarly, the directions given by the prosecutor to the investigator had not been fully followed. Moreover, during the medical expert report regarding V.’s body, the applicant’s rights as an aggrieved party had not been assured since she had not been allowed to ask the expert any questions or to ask for another expert or panel of experts to examine V.’s body, as she had the right to do under the applicable legislation. 15. Having re-examined the case, on 5 November 2009 investigator F. proposed to the prosecutor that no criminal investigation be initiated. This proposal was rejected on 12 November 2009. 16. On 8 December 2009 the applicant complained to the Ciocana prosecutor’s office of delays in the investigating authority’s activity in respect of her son’s case. She received no reply. 17. After that date the investigator proposed to the prosecutor on 29 December 2009 and 19 April 2010 that no criminal investigation be initiated, but both times the prosecutor sent the case for re-examination. In his report of 29 December 2009 the investigator noted, inter alia, that he had held “talks with the medical expert who had carried out the [autopsy], who refused to give any explanations concerning the case, stating that he had indicated all that he knew about this case in the autopsy report”. 18. On 23 June 2010 the investigator proposed to the prosecutor that no criminal investigation be initiated, listing the medical evidence gathered and the witness statements made. He stated that every time a superior prosecutor had annulled a prosecutor’s decision not to initiate a criminal investigation, the directions given in order to carry out a full investigation had been fully complied with, as far as had been objectively possible. In conclusion he stated that, with the passage of time, any further investigating action was futile, since all possible measures had already been taken. 19. On 5 July 2010 a prosecutor from the Ciocana prosecutor’s office approved the investigator’s proposal, since there was no evidence confirming that V. had been killed or provoked into committing suicide. 20. On 20 August 2010 the investigating judge of the Ciocana District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. That decision was final.

5. The applicants were born in 1982 and 2002 respectively and live in Chișinău. The second applicant is the daughter of the first applicant. 6. The first applicant and M.M. married in 2001. M.M. became involved in gambling and started behaving aggressively towards the applicants. The first applicant filed for divorce, which she obtained on 25 February 2010. 7. On 22 June 2010 the first applicant complained to the police that she was being verbally abused by M.M., following which he was fined administratively in the amount of 500 Moldovan lei (MDL − approximately 31 euros at the time). 8. According to the applicants, on 5 September 2010 M.M. assaulted the first applicant; he also caused some bruises to the second applicant. A medical report dated 6 September 2010 established that the first applicant had two haematomas on her lower lip and a slight defect to her teeth on the left side. Another report produced on the same day established that the second applicant had two bruises on her right hand. The medical expert noted the applicants’ explanations that M. M. had punched the first applicant in the face and had pushed the second applicant to the ground, which had caused her to have pain in her arm. Each of the medical reports also stated that the examination had been carried out at the request of the Buiucani police. 9. On 24 February 2011 the Chişinău Court of Appeal decided that the applicants had the right to a three-quarter share of the family apartment, leaving a one-quarter share to M.M. He allegedly became even more aggressive after that decision was adopted. 10. On 21 March 2011 the first applicant complained again to the police that she was being physically and psychologically abused by her ex-husband. A medical report produced on the same day established that she had two haematomas on her right leg. M.M. was fined MDL 500. 11. On 1 April 2011 the first applicant made another complaint concerning M.M. and applied for a protection order. 12. On 5 April 2011 she asked the prosecutor’s office to initiate a criminal investigation against M.M. On 6 May 2011 a prosecutor rejected her request, finding that the medical evidence had confirmed that the injuries caused to the applicants were not considered damaging to their health, meaning that the offence of domestic violence, which required at least slight bodily harm or damage to health, had not been committed. The applicants challenged that decision before the Prosecutor General’s Office on 12 May 2011. 13. On 11 April 2011 the Buiucani District Court issued a protection order, obliging M.M. to temporarily leave the family home and to avoid coming within 100m of the applicants or their places of work and study. However, the order was not sent to the relevant authorities and the first applicant did not obtain her copy until 22 April 2011. On that day she brought the protection order to the attention of the local police, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Social Assistance Department. 14. On 20 April 2011 a psychological report confirmed that the second applicant was experiencing anxiety and emotional distress. It recommended that she have no contact with her abusive father. 15. Despite two visits by the police aimed at forcing M.M. to leave the family apartment (on 27 and 29 April 2011), M.M. refused to leave and the applicants had to stay several nights with their relatives. The last attempt to evict M.M. on 29 April 2011 failed, when he showed the police a decision of the Buiucani District Court of 29 April 2011 suspending the enforcement of its own decision of 11 April 2011 pending the examination of an appeal lodged by him. After that the police refused to take any action in respect of M.M. until a decision was reached by the courts. 16. On 22 April 2011 the applicants asked to be referred to a refuge for victims of domestic violence, the staff of which established that the applicants had been damaged psychologically as a result of the violence they had suffered at the hands of M.M. 17. On an unknown date the applicants appealed against the District Court decision of 29 April 2011. On 17 May 2011 the Public Order and Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the Department”) also appealed against the decision, submitting that the court had been obliged by law to take a decision in respect of the applicants’ complaint within twenty-four hours, which it had manifestly failed to do. Moreover, the law provided that objections to a decision to issue a protection order could not suspend the enforcement of such an order; however, the court had suspended the enforcement of the order of 11 April 2011. Furthermore, the order had not been forwarded to the police and social services immediately, as was required by law. That failure to take a decision and to enforce the protection order eventually issued had put the applicants at risk of further ill-treatment. 18. On 24 May 2011 a criminal investigation was initiated against M.M., who was accused of stealing jewellery from the first applicant. 19. On the same day the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeals lodged by the applicants and the Department and allowed the appeal lodged by M.M., quashing the decision of 11 April 2011 and implicitly annulling the conditions of the protection order. The court found that the lower court had (i) failed to follow a special procedure to deal with the applicants’ application and had not specified the reasons for issuing the protection order, (ii) had not verified whether the alleged aggressor had been properly summoned to the court hearing, and (iii) had failed to obtain a report from social services and the police before issuing the protection order. Moreover, the lower court had not had the power to suspend the enforcement of the protection order as it had done. Therefore the decision of 29 April 2011 was also quashed. Since the lower court had failed to comply with the requirements of the law and had adopted an unlawful decision, the Court of Appeal ordered a re-examination of the case. 20. At the applicant’s request, on 4 July 2011 the prosecutor’s office initiated criminal proceedings against M. M. on charges of domestic violence. 21. On 15 July 2011 the Buiucani District Court rejected the applicants’ application for a protection order. It found that the second applicant had explained that she loved both parents equally; that the father had said horrible things and tried to make them leave the apartment; and that there had been instances when her father had hit her mother and also when her mother had scratched her father or threatened him with a knife. The court noted that the first applicant had submitted that M.M. had been verbally abusive towards her, but held that there was insufficient evidence to back up her claims. It concluded that there was no evidence of any domestic violence having taken place. 22. On 29 September 2011 the Chişinău Court of Appeal issued a protection order in favour of the applicants, similar to that of 11 April 2011. It was officially served on M. M. on 6 October 2011. On 28 December 2011 a police officer confirmed that the order had been complied with. 23. On 30 September 2011 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation against M. M. On 30 December 2011 that decision was annulled by a higher-ranking prosecutor. 24. On 27 February 2012 a prosecutor proposed to discontinue the proceedings concerning the alleged theft of the jewellery. The parties did not inform the Court of any other developments in the two criminal cases, except for a statement by the applicants that in October 2012 they were told that the investigation into their allegations of domestic violence was ongoing. 25. The relevant provisions of the domestic law and the relevant international materials were summarised in Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 3564/11, §§ 29-37, 28 May 2013). 26. In addition, in its Report “Violence against Women in the Family in the Republic of Moldova” (2011) the National Statistics Bureau of the Republic of Moldova[1], provided statistical data concerning violence against women committed by their husbands or life partners. It follows from that report, inter alia that, depending on their age, 41% to 52% of the women interviewed had suffered physical or sexual violence, while 50% to 66% had suffered psychological violence (page 120), with a total prevalence of victims of some form of domestic violence of 63% (page 79). The report also concluded that violence against women was deeply rooted and widespread in society and was repeated down the generations. The abuser’s conduct was accepted by society and served as a means of control over the women. In contrast to violence within the family, only 6% of the women interviewed declared that they had been subjected to a form of violence by persons other than their husbands or life partners. Most of the cases of such reported violence had been caused by other male members of the victim’s family (fathers, stepfathers). The report also found that in most cases domestic violence was not a single incident, but took the form of repeated assault. It was also revealed that a certain percentage of violence against women went unreported, either because the victim considered that she could handle it alone or because of fear and shame. The report concluded that violence against women was rooted in their inequality with men, and that there was widespread social acceptance of the phenomenon. Less than half of the victims interviewed were aware of the legislation aimed at protecting them from domestic violence (Law no. 45, see paragraph 30 in Eremia, cited above). Of the women who were aware of the legislation, less than half believed it was efficient. The majority of victims of domestic violence preferred to call the police rather than doctors or social workers, but they were also the least satisfied with the manner in which the police acted on their complaints.

6. The applicant is a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnic origin. He was born on 1 September 1988 and resided in the town of Osh in Kyrgyzstan. After mass disorder and inter-ethnic clashes in the region in June 2010, he fled to Russia, together with many other ethnic Uzbeks, for fear of ethnic‑motivated violence. It appears that his next of kin remain in Kyrgyzstan. 7. In August 2010 the applicant arrived in Russia and received a temporary residence permit for the period from 3 December 2010 to 3 December 2013. 8. After the applicant’s departure from Kyrgyzstan, on 25 June 2010 the Kyrgyz authorities charged him in absentia with involvement in riots accompanied by violence, inter-ethnic clashes, arson, use of firearms and destruction of property on 17 June 2010 in the city of Osh, Kyrgyz Republic. The applicant was also alleged to have kidnapped someone. 9. On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant was put on a list of fugitives in Kyrgyzstan; on 12 February 2011 he was put on a list of fugitives in Russia as well. 10. On 29 October 2012, while travelling by train in Russia, the applicant was arrested by the transport police. He denied his involvement in the 2010 events. On 31 October 2012, the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered the applicant’s detention for a month. His detention was subsequently extended numerous times. 11. The Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant’s extradition. On 23 November 2012, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation received a request from the Kyrgyz Republic seeking the applicant’s extradition. On 13 August 2013 it granted the request. 12. The applicant and his counsel appealed against the extradition order claiming, in particular, that he would face a risk of torture and ill‑treatment since ethnic Uzbeks were a particularly vulnerable group following the June 2010 violence in the southern regions of Kyrgyzstan. On 26 November 2013 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the extradition order, finding it unlawful, and released the applicant. It appears that the applicant is currently at large. 13. On 25 February 2014 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the ruling of the St Petersburg City Court of 26 November 2013 and upheld the extradition order. In its decision of 25 February 2014 the Supreme Court held, in particular, as follows: “... the conclusion of the lower court that the prosecutor’s office failed to examine the question of the risk of unacceptable treatment in the Kyrgyz Republic in the event of [the applicant’s] extradition does not fit the case-file materials. The Prosecutor General’s office of the Kyrgyz Republic has given guarantees to the effect that [the applicant] would only be prosecuted in respect of the crimes indicated in the initial extradition request and the behaviour of a general criminal character. They guaranteed that he would not be prosecuted on the basis of political or discriminatory reasons, including motives based on his origins, social background, the office he may have occupied, the pecuniary situation, gender, race, ethnicity, language, convictions and relations to religion, that [the applicant] would be given all possibilities to defend himself, that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that if he was convicted and after having served the sentence he would be able to leave the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic freely. The materials submitted by the defence ... do not undermine the real guarantees provided by the Kyrgyz Republic in respect of [the applicant] and are sufficient to exclude any risk of his cruel treatment ...” 14. According to the Russian Government, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Kyrgyz Republic gave all necessary guarantees that the applicant’s criminal prosecution would be carried out in strict compliance with the national law and the international obligations of the Kyrgyz Republic. Among other things, it guaranteed that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or other cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment; he would be guaranteed the right to defence, and Russian diplomatic staff would be given an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility. 15. On 7 November 2012, while in detention, the applicant applied to the Federal Migration Service for refugee status. He claimed, among other things, that a criminal case had been opened against him exclusively because of his ethnic origin and that he would face a real risk of ill‑treatment if he were sent back to Kyrgyzstan. 16. Following the examination of the applicant’s asylum request, by its decision of 19 March 2013 the Department of the Federal Migration Service for St Petersburg and Leningrad region refused to grant refugee status to the applicant as he did not meet the necessary criteria defined by the national law. The Federal Migration Service of Russia took a final administrative decision on the matter on 7 October 2013, stating as follows: “... the basic criterion for granting a person temporary asylum is the presence of a well-founded suspicion that if returned to his/her home country, that person could become a victim of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The analysis of the decision of the migration authorities in charge of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, the materials of the applicant’s personal case file, the information communicated by the applicant, as well as the available information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian and the Federal Migration Service of Russia concerning the situation in Kyrgyzstan has shown that the migration authorities in charge of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region have fully examined all the circumstances of the case and lawfully concluded that there were no humanitarian reasons compelling the authorities to grant the applicant a possibility to remain temporarily on the territory of the Russian Federation. According to the information submitted by the Prosecutor General’s office, an agreement has now been reached with the Kyrgyz authorities which enables officials at the Embassy of the Russian Federation to monitor the compliance by the authorities of Kyrgyzstan with the standards of international law in respects of persons extradited to the Kyrgyz Republic. The monitoring has established that the decision of the UFMS in charge of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region to refuse to grant the applicant temporary asylum on the territory of the Russian Federation did not breach the legislation on refugees. The decision ... is lawful, justified and should be upheld.” 17. The applicant’s representatives appealed against the decision of 7 October 2013. By a final decision of 28 July 2014 the Moscow City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.

10. On 4 April 2008 thirty-two Orthodox priests from parishes of the Metropolis of Oltenia, most of which were within the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Craiova (a region of south-western Romania), and three lay employees of the same archdiocese held a general meeting at which they decided to form the Păstorul cel Bun trade union. The relevant parts of the union’s constitution, as adopted at the meeting, read as follows: “The aim of the union of clergy and lay persons working in parishes or other ecclesiastical bodies within the administrative and territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolis of Oltenia has been freely defined. It shall consist in representing and protecting the professional, economic, social and cultural rights and interests of its members, both clergy and laity, in their dealings with the Church hierarchy and the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs. In order to achieve the above aim, the union shall: (a) ensure respect for the fundamental rights of its members to work, dignity, social protection, safety at work, rest, social insurance, unemployment benefits, pension entitlements and other entitlements laid down in the legislation in force; (b) ensure that each of its members is able to carry out work corresponding to his professional training and skills; (c) ensure compliance with the statutory provisions concerning the duration of leave and days of rest; (d) promote initiative, competition and freedom of expression among its members; (e) ensure the implementation and strict observance of the statutory provisions concerning protection of employment and the rights deriving therefrom; (f) ensure the full application of the provisions of Law no. 489/2006 on religious freedom and the legal status of religious denominations, the Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Holy Canons of the Romanian Orthodox Church; (g) negotiate collective agreements and contracts of employment with the Archdiocese and the Metropolis expressly setting out all the rights and duties of the clergy and laity; (h) afford protection to its president and representatives, both during and after their terms of office; (i) ensure that it is represented at all levels and on all decision-making bodies, in accordance with the statutory provisions in force; (j) use petitions, demonstrations and strikes as means of defending its members’ interests and protecting their dignity and fundamental rights; (k) take legal action against any individuals or other entities acting in breach of employment legislation, trade-union law, the provisions of the collective agreement signed within the Metropolis or employment contracts, if it has proved impossible to resolve the disputes in question by means of negotiation; (l) ensure the observance and implementation of statutory provisions relating to remuneration and guarantees of decent living conditions; (m) strive to secure to the clergy and laity the benefit of all the rights enjoyed by other sectors of society; (n) set up mutual-aid funds; (o) produce and issue publications providing information to its members and defending their interests; (p) establish and operate cultural, educational and research organisations in the trade-union sphere, as well as social and socio-economic institutions, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and in the interests of its members; (r) raise funds to support its members; (s) organise and fund religious activities; (ş) make proposals for elections to local Church bodies and put forward a priest from among its members to take part in the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church; (t) ask the Archdiocese to submit a report on its revenues and expenditure to the Assembly of Priests; and (ţ) ask the Archdiocesan Council to notify it, on a quarterly or annual basis, of any decisions relating to appointments, transfers and allocation of budgetary resources.” 11. In accordance with the Trade Unions Act (Law no. 54/2003), the union’s elected president applied to the Craiova Court of First Instance for the union to be granted legal personality and entered in the register of trade unions, submitting that the application for registration was in conformity with that Act and that the formation of a trade union was not prohibited by the Religious Freedom Act (Law no. 489/2006). 12. The public prosecutor’s office, representing the State in the proceedings, supported the application for registration, submitting that the establishment of a trade union for members of the clergy and lay staff was not in breach of any provision of the law. It added that since the union’s members were employees working under contracts of employment, they were entitled, like any other employees, to join together as part of a trade union to defend their rights. 13. The Archdiocese of Craiova, intervening in the proceedings as a third party, confirmed that the union’s members were employed by the Archdiocese but argued that the establishment of the union, without the Archbishop’s consent and blessing (“permission”), was prohibited by the Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, as approved by Government Ordinance no. 53/2008. It added that the Statute barred priests from taking part in proceedings in the civil courts, even in connection with personal disputes, without the archbishop’s prior written permission. Pointing out that priests chaired parish assemblies and governing bodies, the Archdiocese submitted that they were thus unable to form trade unions since the Trade Unions Act prohibited anyone performing management functions from doing so. Lastly, it produced written statements from eight members of the union indicating that they no longer wished to be part of it. 14. Having observed that the application for registration satisfied the formal requirements of the Trade Unions Act, the court decided that the application should be examined in the light of Articles 2 and 3 of that Act, Article 39 of the Labour Code, Article 40 of the Constitution, Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 15. In a judgment of 22 May 2008, the court allowed the union’s application and ordered its entry in the register of trade unions, thereby granting it legal personality. 16. The relevant passages of the judgment read as follows: “The third party submits that the application to form the trade union infringes both the special legislation on religious freedom and the legal status of religious denominations and also, in the absence of any blessing from the Archbishop or of any prior written permission to take part in court proceedings (a requirement that applies even to personal disputes), the Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Having regard to the provisions of the Church’s Statute and of the Religious Freedom Act (Law no. 489/2006), the court dismisses the third party’s arguments as unfounded for the reasons set out below. The court notes that, pursuant to section 5(4) of Law no. 489/2006, religious communities, associations and groups are required to observe the Constitution and their activities must not threaten national security, public order, public health and morals or fundamental rights and freedoms. The court further observes that the Statute of the Church, as approved by Government Ordinance no. 53/2008, does not expressly forbid the establishment of a trade union for clergy and lay staff in accordance with labour legislation. The third party, which contends that the right to form a trade union is subject to receiving the archbishop’s blessing, has not disputed that the union’s founding members are contractual employees. The third party’s arguments have been analysed in the light of both sections 7 to 10 of the Religious Freedom Act, which acknowledges the important role of the Romanian Orthodox Church and its organisational and operational autonomy, and section 1(2) of the same Act, which provides that ‘no one shall be prevented from or coerced into embracing a religious opinion or faith contrary to his or her beliefs’ and that ‘no one shall suffer discrimination or persecution or be placed in an inferior position on account of his or her faith, membership or non-membership of a religious denomination, group or association, or for exercising freedom of religion in accordance with the law’. In so far as members of the clergy and laity are recognised as employees, they have the statutory right to form a trade union. This right cannot be subject to any restrictions based on religious affiliation or to prior consent from the hierarchy. In the court’s opinion, the principle of hierarchical subordination and obedience set forth in the Statute cannot be used as a basis for restricting the right to form a trade union; the only permissible restrictions in this sphere must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The third party’s argument that the applicants did not obtain the archbishop’s permission to take part in proceedings in the civil courts must likewise be dismissed, given that Article 21 of the Constitution provides: ‘Everyone shall be entitled to apply to the courts for protection of his rights, freedoms or legitimate interests. The exercise of this right shall not be restricted by any statute.’ The establishment of a trade union does not necessarily indicate the existence of a dissident strand within the Romanian Orthodox Church with a disregard for hierarchy and the rules imposed by the Church; on the contrary, it is likely to contribute to employer-employee dialogue on such matters as negotiation of employment contracts, observance of working and non-working hours and the rules on remuneration, protection of health and safety at work, vocational training, medical cover and the opportunity to elect representatives and stand for election to decision-making bodies, with due regard for the special characteristics of the Church and its religious, spiritual, cultural, educational, social and charitable purpose. Having regard to the foregoing, in accordance with section 15 of Law no. 54/2003, the court allows the application, dismisses the objection by the third party, grants legal personality to the union and orders its entry in the register of trade unions.” 17. The Archdiocese challenged that judgment, arguing that the provisions of domestic and international law on which it was based were not applicable to the case at hand. Relying on Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom and the autonomy of religious communities, it contended that the principle of religious freedom could not be overridden by other constitutional principles such as freedom of association, including the right to organise. 18. It submitted that the emergence within the structure of the Church of a trade union-type organisation for members of the clergy would seriously imperil the freedom of religious denominations to organise themselves in accordance with their own traditions. The first-instance court’s judgment had added a new institution to the existing Church institutions, namely a trade union for priests, thereby jeopardising the autonomy of religious communities as guaranteed by the Constitution. 19. The Archdiocese also criticised the applicant union’s stated aims, contending that they conflicted with the duties that were set out in the “job description” and accepted by priests by virtue of their “vow of faith”. It pointed out that upon ordination, all priests had undertaken to abide by all the provisions of the Church’s Statute, the rules of procedure of the Church’s disciplinary and judicial bodies and the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, local church assemblies and the parish council. 20. In June 2008 the Holy Synod declared that initiatives by priests from various regions of the country to set up trade unions were in breach of the law, the canons and the Church’s Statute. 21. In a final judgment of 11 July 2008 the Dolj County Court allowed the appeal by the Archdiocese and revoked the registration of the trade union. 22. The relevant passages of the judgment read as follows: “The Romanian Orthodox Church is organised and operates in accordance with its Statute, as approved by Government Ordinance no. 53/2008. The Statute prohibits priests from setting up associations, foundations or organisations of any kind, and hence trade unions. This prohibition is designed to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the Romanian Orthodox Church by allowing it to preserve the Orthodox tradition and its founding tenets. By virtue of section 6(2) of Law no. 54/2003, internal regulations may not contain any provisions that are in breach of the Constitution or the law. The establishment of a trade union would result in the consultative and deliberative bodies provided for by the Statute being replaced by or obliged to work together with a new body (the trade union) not bound by the traditions of the Church and the rules of canon law governing consultation and decision-making. The freedom to organise religious communities is recognised by the Constitution and Law no. 489/2006 on religious freedom and the legal status of religious denominations. Each denomination draws up its own statutes governing its internal organisation, its members’ rights and obligations, its decision-making procedures and the operation of its disciplinary bodies. Pursuant to Article 14 (w) of [the Statute of the Orthodox Church], the Holy Synod takes decisions concerning the establishment, operation or dissolution of national ecclesiastical associations and foundations set up and managed by the Romanian Orthodox Church; [it] grants or denies permission for the establishment, operation or dissolution of ecclesiastical associations and foundations which have their own governing bodies and operate within the territorial subdivisions of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate. It follows from the above-mentioned provisions, which make no reference to trade unions, that the associations and foundations must be ecclesiastical and national in nature. It also follows from Article 50 (e) of the Statute of the Orthodox Church that priests may not represent their parishes in court proceedings without the bishop’s prior written consent. Similarly, in view of the oath of obedience towards the bishop which they took upon ordination, members of the clergy may not take part in court proceedings concerning personal matters without the bishop’s prior written permission. Law no. 54/2003 provides that persons performing management functions or functions involving the exercise of public authority, the judiciary, the military, the police and members of the special forces may not set up trade unions. In the present case the Statute defines the parish, which is a subdivision of the Orthodox Church, as a community of Orthodox Christians, both clergy and laity, established within a specified geographical area, under the ecclesiastical, legal, administrative and economic authority of the diocese, and led by a priest. An examination of the list of priests involved in the present case reveals that they chair their parish assemblies and councils. Since they perform management functions and receive stipends on that account in accordance with the above-mentioned provisions, they may not form trade unions. Having regard to the foregoing, the court allows the appeal, quashes the judgment and refuses the application for registration of the trade union.” 23. On 29 September 2008 the attempt to set up the applicant union was discussed within the Synod of the Metropolis of Oltenia. The Synod decided that if the union’s members were to lodge an application with the Court, they should be punished and referred to the disciplinary bodies. As a result, the members concerned were summoned to the Archdiocese headquarters, where some of them signed declarations to the effect that they no longer wished to pursue the application. 24. In a letter of 21 June 2010, the chancery of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate reminded the Archdiocese that priests were forbidden to apply to domestic and international courts without the consent of their hierarchy and asked it to obtain written declarations from the priests in question stating that they no longer wished to pursue the application and, in the event of their refusal, to refer them to the appropriate disciplinary bodies. Some of the priests, despite having signed the declarations, informed the Court that they intended to pursue the application lodged on behalf of the union. 25. On 19 April 2010 three priests who had been members of the applicant union set up an association called Apostolia together with five other people. The association received the approval of the Archbishop of Craiova, who made premises available for use as its headquarters. It was registered with the Craiova Court of First Instance on 8 June 2010. 26. The association’s aims, as set out in its constitution, are: to educate the people in the spirit of Orthodox morality; to promote a sense of solidarity between the clergy and the faithful; to raise funds for the publication of documents to defend the faith and traditions; to organise and support cultural, religious and social activities; to take a stand against events, initiatives and demonstrations that denigrate Christian morality, the Orthodox faith, national identity and traditions; and to use all legal means to publicise its own decisions concerning the protection of pastoral, social and professional interests.

12. The applicant is an American public company whose registered office is in Saint Louis, Missouri (United States of America). It produces and sells beer under the brand name “Budweiser” in a number of countries around the world. 13. The applicant company has sold beer in the United States under the “Budweiser” mark since at least 1876. It broke into the European markets in the 1980s and says that it began to sell “Budweiser” beer in Portugal in July 1986. 14. The applicant company’s decision to extend the sale of its beers to Europe led to a dispute with a Czechoslovak – now Czech – company called Budějovický Budvar. Budějovický Budvar produces a beer in the town of České Budějovice in Bohemia (Czech Republic) which is also called “Budweiser”. The term comes from Budweis, the German name for the town. The applicant company alleges that Budějovický Budvar has only been marketing beer under the “Budweiser” name since 1895, whereas Budějovický Budvar says that it has been entitled to use that appellation since 1265, when King Ottakar II of Bohemia conferred the right to produce the beer on a number of independent brewers in České Budějovice (Budweis in German). The brewers used a special technique and beers produced by this method became known by the term “Budweiser”, just as beers produced using the methods of another Czech town, Plzeň (Pilsen in German), became known as “Pilsner”. 15. According to the information before the Court, the applicant company concluded two agreements in 1911 and 1939 with Budějovický Budvar concerning the distribution and sale of “Budweiser” beer in the United States. However, these agreements did not deal with the question of the right to use the “Budweiser” name in Europe. As a result, the two companies became embroiled in a series of legal proceedings over the right to use the term “Budweiser” in various European countries, including Portugal. 16. On 19 May 1981 the applicant company applied to the National Institute for Industrial Property (NIIP) to register “Budweiser” as a trade mark on the industrial-property register. The NIIP did not grant the application immediately because it was opposed by Budějovický Budvar, which alleged that “Budweiser Bier” had been registered in its name as an appellation of origin since 1968. Budějovický Budvar had effected the registration under the terms of the Lisbon Agreement of 31 October 1958 for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration (see paragraph 33 below). 17. Negotiations took place throughout the 1980s with a view to resolving the dispute between the applicant company and Budějovický Budvar. According to the applicant company, in 1982 the negotiations even led to an agreement being drawn up concerning the use of the “Budweiser” trade mark in Portugal and other European countries. However, the talks eventually broke down and in June 1989 the applicant company instructed lawyers in Portugal to commence court proceedings. 18. The applicant company then applied to the Lisbon Court of First Instance on 10 November 1989 for an order cancelling Budějovický Budvar’s registration. A summons was served on Budějovický Budvar, but it did not file a defence. In a judgment of 8 March 1995 (which, in the absence of an appeal, became final), the Lisbon Court of First Instance granted the applicant company’s application on the ground that the product to which the registration referred, namely the beer known as “Budweiser Bier”, was not an appellation of origin or indication of source. The Court of First Instance noted that under the terms of the Lisbon Agreement of 31 October 1958 such protection was reserved to the geographical name of a country, region, or locality, which served to designate a product originating therein, the quality and characteristics of which were due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors. “Budweiser” did not come within this category. The registration was therefore cancelled. 19. Following the cancellation of the appellation of origin, and despite the fact that Budějovický Budvar had challenged the application for registration under the opposition procedure, the NIIP registered the “Budweiser” trade mark in the applicant company’s name on 20 June 1995 in a decision that was published on 8 November 1995. 20. On 8 February 1996 Budějovický Budvar appealed to the Lisbon Court of First Instance against the NIIP’s decision on the strength of an agreement between the governments of the Portuguese Republic and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on the Protection of Indications of Source, Appellations of Origin and Other Geographical and Similar Designations (“the Bilateral Agreement”), which was signed in Lisbon on 10 January 1986 and which came into force on 7 March 1987, after publication in the Official Gazette. As required by law, the applicant company was invited by the court to take part in the proceedings as an interested party. In June 1996 it was served with the originating summons that had been lodged by Budějovický Budvar. 21. In a judgment of 18 July 1998, the Lisbon Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal. It found that the only intellectual property eligible for protection under Portuguese law and the Bilateral Agreement (which, according to the court was no longer in force, owing to the disappearance of one of the contracting parties, Czechoslovakia) was the “Českobudějovický Budvar” appellation of origin, not the “Budweiser” trade mark. In addition, it found that there was no risk of confusion between the appellation of origin and the applicant company’s trade mark, which the vast majority of consumers tended to think of as an American beer. 22. Budějovický Budvar appealed against that decision to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, alleging, inter alia, a breach of Article 189 § 1, sub-paragraphs (l) and (j), of the Code of Industrial Property. In a judgment of 21 October 1999, the Lisbon Court of Appeal overturned the impugned judgment and ordered the NIIP to refuse to register “Budweiser” as a trade mark. The Court of Appeal did not consider that there had been a breach of Article 189 § 1 (l) of the Code of Industrial Property, as the expression “Budweiser” was incapable of misleading the Portuguese public as to the origin of the beer concerned. However, it found that such a registration would infringe the Bilateral Agreement and, consequently, Article 189 § 1 (j) of the Code of Industrial Property. In that connection, it noted that the Bilateral Agreement had remained in force, following an exchange of notes between the Czech and Portuguese governments (see paragraph 25 below) and had been incorporated into domestic law by virtue of Article 8 of the Constitution, which contained a clause providing for international law to take effect in the Portuguese legal system. 23. The applicant company appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court alleging, inter alia, that the impugned decision contravened the Agreement of 15 April 1994 on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“the TRIPs Agreement”), which establishes the rule that registration confers priority, and in particular its Articles 2 and 24 § 5. The applicant company also alleged that, in any event, the protected appellation of origin “Českobudějovický Budvar” did not correspond to the German expression “Budweiser”, so that the Bilateral Agreement could not be used to challenge its application for registration. The applicant company argued that, even supposing that the German expression “Budweiser” was an accurate translation of the Czech appellation of origin, the Bilateral Agreement applied only to translations between Portuguese and Czech, not to translations into other languages. It submitted, lastly, that the Bilateral Agreement was unconstitutional owing to a formal defect in that it had been adopted by the government, not Parliament, in breach of Articles 161 and 165 of the Constitution governing parliamentary sovereignty. 24. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law in a judgment of 23 January 2001, which came to the applicant company’s attention on 30 January 2001. With regard to the TRIPs Agreement, the Supreme Court began by noting that the provision on which the applicant company relied required it to have acted in good faith before going on to say that the applicant company had not referred in its application for registration to any factual information that demonstrated its good faith. In any event, the effect of Article 65 of the TRIPs Agreement was that it had not become binding under Portuguese law until 1 January 1996, that is to say after the entry into force of the 1986 Bilateral Agreement. The Supreme Court therefore found that the TRIPs Agreement could not take precedence over the Bilateral Agreement. As regards the interpretation of the Bilateral Agreement, the Supreme Court considered that the intention of the two contracting States in entering into it had incontestably been to protect through reciprocal arrangements their respective national products, including when translations of a name were used. The appellation of origin “Českobudějovický Budvar”, which became “Budweis” or “Budweiss” in German, indicated a product from the České Budějovice region in Bohemia. It was therefore protected by the Bilateral Agreement. Lastly, the procedure whereby the Agreement had been adopted did not contravene Articles 161 and 165 of the Constitution, since it did not concern a sphere for which Parliament had exclusive competence.

4. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Setúbal. 5. On 29 August 2002 the applicant was admitted to the emergency services in S. Bernardo Hospital (since renamed Setúbal Hospital Centre). She gave birth to a son who has irreversible injuries caused by the birth. 6. On 26 January 2005 the applicant brought a civil action before the Almada Administrative Court against the hospital, claiming damages for the injuries caused to her son. She claimed that contrary to her doctor’s instructions, the medical staff who treated her during labor had not performed a caesarean thus her son being born with several problems which caused him permanent motor-neurone injuries. She held that the hospital was responsible for medical negligence at birth. 7. On 9 March 2005 the hospital contested the civil action. 8. On 17 October 2005 a preliminary hearing was held. A second session of the preliminary hearing was scheduled for 5 December 2005, which was adjourned because the time-limits for the analysis of the documents had not expired. The hearing was adjourned to 7 February 2006. 9. Meanwhile, on 27 December 2006, the applicant requested the Almada Administrative Court to issue an interim measure (providência cautelar) seeking a temporary remediation (arbitramento de uma reparação provisória). On 16 January 2006 the Almada Administrative Court ordered interim payment of EUR 550 per month to the applicant and her husband until the decision in the main proceedings would be delivered and become res judicata. 10. On 2 February 2006 the hospital sought leave for the medical and nursing team to intervene in the proceedings. On 20 February 2006 the applicant replied to the hospital’s request. 11. The hearing called for 7 February 2006 had to be adjourned because of the hospital’s request. 12. On 14 March 2006 the judge gave directions (despacho saneador) setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding. 13. On 31 March and on 6 April 2006 the hospital and the applicant submitted evidence and both requested expert’s appointement. 14. On 7 May 2006 the judge admitted the evidence submitted by the parties and ordered an expert medical report. 15. On 11 July 2006 the Almada Court requested the Portuguese Medical Chamber (Ordem dos Médicos) to appoint medical experts. Several requests were made concerning medical experts in gynaecology and obstetrics. The Portuguese Medical Chamber replied to all requests. 16. On 28 February 2007 the Forensic Institute (Instituto de Medicina Legal) submitted its forensic report, which contained its preliminary conclusions. 17. On 5 March 2007 the Forensic Institute lodged a request with the Almada Administrative Court seeking access to all the medical reports in respect of the birth of the applicant’s son. On 9 March 2007 the parties were notified to submit the relevant medical reports. On 21 March 2007 the hospital submitted its reports and on 23 March 2007 the applicant request for an extension of the time-limit. On 18 April 2007 the applicant submitted the medical reports. 18. On 31 January 2008 the Forensic Institute submitted its expert report. 19. On 4 June and on 20 June 2008, the appointed experts in gynaecology and obstetrics and the appointed experts in paediatrics submitted their reports, respectively. 20. The parties were notified of the reports and on 15 July 2008 the applicant requested a second expert medical report. On 18 July 2008 the hospital opposed to the applicant’s request. 21. On 28 July 2008 the Almada Adminitrative Court requested the experts to clarify existing doubts with regard to their reports. The clarifications were submitted on 3 and 15 October 2008. 22. On 14 November 2008 the Almada Administrative Court requested the Portuguese Medical Chamber to appoint experts in gynaecology and obstetrics to provide technical advice during trial. On 3 February 2009 the Portuguese Medical Chamber appointed an expert. 23. Between 9 December 2009 and 28 September 2010 the Almada Administrative Court listed nine hearings. In between hearings new evidence was submitted by the parties. 24. On 2 March 2011 the Almada Administrative Court delivered its decision in which it considered that the hospital could not be held liable for the injuries for lack of evidence in that regard. 25. On 8 April 2011 the applicant challenged the outcome of the proceedings before the Administrative Central Court of the South. 26. On 22 March 2012 the Administrative Central Court upheld the first-instance decision. 27. On 19 June 2012 the application of the interim measure ended when the decision of the second-instance court became res judicata.

4. The applicants were born in 1930 and 1934 respectively and live in Irkutsk. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. On 22 December 1986 the Irkutsk regional administration ordered expropriation of the applicants' plot of land, house and certain constructions in the public interest and transferred them to the State enterprise “Vostok”. The actual transfer took place in 1992. 7. On 27 January 1993 the first applicant reached an agreement with “Vostok” by which the enterprise undertook to move the applicant's garage and cellar to his new place of residence. By a decision of the same date, the Sverdlovskiy District Court of the Irkutsk Region approved the agreement. It was later invalidated by domestic courts. 8. On 22 September 1995 the Sverdlovskiy District Court allowed the applicants' civil claims against “Vostok” and awarded them compensation for the expropriated property. The applicants did not specify the amount awarded. It appears that the judgment became binding and enforceable on 2 October 1995. 9. On 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001 the District Court adjusted the award under the judgment of 22 September 1995 in line with the inflation. 10. According to the judgments of 22 September 1995, 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001, the federal State unitary enterprise “Vostok” (федеральное государственное унитарное предприятие “Восток”) was to pay 72,502.20 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to the first applicant and RUR 4,856.30 to the second applicant. 11. On an unspecified date the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings and placed the applicants on the waiting list, along with many others creditors of “Vostok”. 12. On 28 January 2002 the Commercial Court of the Irkutsk Region started insolvency proceedings against “Vostok”. 13. On 24 February 2004 the bailiff passed the enforcement documents to the company receiver. 14. On an unspecified date the applicants brought civil proceedings against the Irkutsk City Administration, claiming that the Administration should be liable for the debts of the State enterprise. 15. On 3 December 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed their claim as having no basis in the domestic law. On 30 January 2004 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 16. It appears that the judgments of 22 September 1995, 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001 have not been enforced to date, and that the insolvency proceedings against “Vostok” are still pending.

4. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Novovolynsk. 5. In July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Novovolynsk Court (Нововолинський міський суд Волинської області) against his former employer, the State OJSC “Chervonogradske GMU” (“the Company”; ДВАТ «Червоноградське гірничо-монтажне управління») for various payments. 6. On 6 October 1999 and 17 December 1999 the court awarded the applicant a total of 3,355.37 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. 7. On 21 January 2000 the Chervonograd Bailiffs Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Червоноградського міського управління юстиції Львівської області) initiated the enforcement proceedings for collecting the above amount. 8. On 20 August 2005 the applicant received UAH 1,409.80[2]. 9. The remaining judgments debt is outstanding on account of the Company's lack of funds and the holding of its assets in tax lien.

7. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki. 8. On 14 December 1992 the tax authority filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and two other persons, suspecting them of debtor’s dishonesty or aiding and abetting the commission of such an offence in relation to transactions between two companies, Osakeyhtiö Six (as of 1997 Fryckman-yhtiö Oy) and Moniplan Oy. On 30 December 1988 Osakeyhtiö Six had sold to Moniplan Oy the shares of its subsidiaries Six-Myynti Oy (later Seroponex Oy) and Aromimauste Oy (later Cenoporex Oy). The above-mentioned contract had later been declared null and void in civil proceedings. 9. The criminal proceedings related to several sets of criminal investigations. Of these, the earliest one concerned the applicant’s alleged offence of debtor’s dishonesty. On 22 March 1993 the applicant was interrogated as a suspect by the police. 10. On 14 May 1993 the administrator of Cenoporex Oy and Seroponex Oy, which by that stage had been wound-up, requested that charges be brought. On 16 November 1993 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant. 11. On 15 December 1993 the applicant and two others were charged before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Helsinki with two counts of debtor’s dishonesty and a further defendant was charged with aiding and abetting. The case was heard on 26 occasions by the court. 12. The public prosecutor requested that the case be adjourned at the 3rd – 8th hearings, held between 15 February 1994 and 16 May 1995. 13. At the 9th hearing on 19 September 1995 the case was adjourned at the applicant’s request. 14. At the next hearing, held on 28 November 1995, the case was again adjourned at the public prosecutor’s request. Subsequently, the applicant, among others, requested adjournments at the 11th – 15th hearings, held between 2 April 1996 and 18 March 1997. 15. At the 16th hearing on 10 June 1997 the District Court adjourned the case so as to await the outcome of the taxation proceedings concerning Seroponex Oy and Cenoporex Oy, pending before the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Uusimaa. The District Court held five more hearings before 11 March 1999, when the County Administrative Court issued its decision in the taxation proceedings. 16. Meanwhile, after the 19th hearing, held on 27 May 1998, the presiding judge died and she was replaced by another judge. 17. At the 22nd hearing on 18 March 1999 the case was adjourned at the applicant’s request for two months. 18. At the 23rd hearing on 23 June 1999 and the 24th hearing on 18 November 1999 the case was adjourned pending the outcome of the taxation proceedings, which were now pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen). On 2 December 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the companies’ final appeals. 19. At the 25th hearing on 9 February 2000 the District Court took note of the above decisions and deferred judgment until 13 June 2000. 20. On 13 June 2000 the District Court of Helsinki delivered its judgment. The applicant was found guilty of debtor’s dishonesty and sentenced to one and a half year’s imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay damages jointly and severally with other convicted persons. 21. The applicant appealed, having been granted a two-month extension of the time-limit for appealing. He claimed, inter alia, that he should have been acquitted in view of the excessive length of the proceedings. He further argued that the evidence had not been assessed objectively by the District Court due to the change in the composition of the court. 22. The proceedings before the appellate court began in September 2000. On 23 November 2001, following an oral hearing at which four witnesses were examined, the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki dismissed the applicant’s request for an acquittal based on the length of the proceedings and upheld his conviction and sentence. 23. On 28 June 2002 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. 24. The applicant filed extraordinary appeals with the Supreme Court concerning, inter alia, the judgment sentencing the applicant. On 2 January 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for annulment.

4. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul. 5. On 22 April 2000 the applicant, a lawyer and member of the administrative board of the Istanbul Human Rights Association, organised a demonstration in Sultanahmet Square in Istanbul, in the form of a march followed by a statement to the press, to protest against plans for “F-type” prisons. 6. At about 12 noon a group of forty to fifty persons brandishing placards and signs gathered in the square, under the leadership of the applicant and Eren Keskin, a lawyer and President of the Istanbul Human Rights Association. The police asked the group to disperse and to end the gathering, and informed them via a loudspeaker that the demonstration, for which advance notice had not been submitted, was unlawful and was likely to cause public-order problems at a busy time of day. 7. The demonstrators refused to obey and attempted to continue marching towards the police, who dispersed the group using a kind of tear gas known as “pepper spray”. The police arrested thirty-nine demonstrators, including the applicant, and took them to a police station. 8. After an identity check, and in view of her profession, the applicant was released at 12.45 p.m. 9. On 26 April 2000 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Beyoğlu prosecutor’s office against the head of the Istanbul security police and the police officers concerned, alleging that she had been ill-treated through the use of pepper spray, unlawfully arrested and prevented from making the public statement scheduled for the end of the demonstration. 10. On 29 June 2000 the public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings on the ground that no offence had been committed. 11. On 25 July 2000 the applicant applied to the Beyoğlu Assize Court seeking to have that decision set aside. 12. On 25 September 2000 the Assize Court upheld the decision that there was no case to answer.

5. The applicant was born in 1963. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 6. The applicant was charged with multiple counts of fraud and unlawful possession of a firearm. The trial took place before the Grodzisk Wielkopolski District Court. The applicant, represented by a legal-aid lawyer, was present during the trial. On 19 May 2006 the court convicted the applicant of multiple counts of fraud, acquitted him of the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. 7. The applicant’s legal‑aid lawyer, who had represented him during the proceedings, filed an appeal against this judgment with the Poznań Court of Appeal. He maintained, in particular, that the first‑instance court had committed errors when applying the relevant provisions of substantive law; that the court had erred in refusing to admit a further expert opinion in evidence; that the presumption of innocence had thereby been breached as the court had refused to admit this evidence because the applicant had in the past been convicted in different criminal proceedings; and that the court had wrongly established the relevant facts of the case which had led it to make a wrong decision. 8. By a letter dated 2 July 2006 the applicant lodged his own appeal with the court. He argued, inter alia, that the first‑instance court had committed errors in the assessment of the evidence, that the establishment of the facts had been erroneous and that the court’s reasoning, leading to the finding of guilt, was arbitrary. He argued that the principle of the presumption of innocence had thereby been breached. The prosecuting authorities also appealed against the judgment. 9. By a letter of 10 October 2006 the applicant, who was in detention at that time, requested leave to be brought from prison to the hearing before the Poznań Court of Appeal. His request read: “On the basis of Article 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby request to be brought to a hearing to be held on 22 November 2006 before the court of appeal during the appeal proceedings against the judgment of the Grodzisk Wielkopolski District Court.” 10. By a decision of 25 October 2006 the court refused leave. The decision read as follows: “Under Article 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an appellate court shall order that a detained accused be brought to the hearing, unless it decides that the presence of a lawyer is sufficient. The Regional Court is of the view that the [applicant’s] request is very brief and vague and that its author has limited himself to saying that he would like to attend the hearing, failing to specify reasons why his presence was necessary or required. The [applicant] is represented by a legal-aid lawyer, whose presence at the appeal hearing is obligatory. In those circumstances his right to an effective defence will be fully secured.” 11. On 22 November 2006 the Court of Appeal held a hearing. The applicant’s lawyer was present. In his oral pleadings the lawyer reiterated the arguments advanced in his appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against the first‑instance judgment. The court examined the grounds for the appeals adduced by the applicant’s lawyer and by the applicant himself. It was of the view that the lower court had thoroughly assessed the evidence and had carefully considered the applicant’s guilt. Its conclusions were logical, thorough and meticulously explained in the light of the voluminous evidence obtained in the case. 12. By a letter of the same date the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer informed him that he had attended the hearing and that the court had dismissed the appeals lodged by the prosecution and by the applicant. He further informed the applicant that he had requested the court to prepare written grounds for the judgment, but that under no circumstances would he prepare a cassation appeal against the judgment. 13. That judgment, together with its written grounds, was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 2 January 2007. Subsequently, the applicant requested to be granted legal aid for the purposes of cassation proceedings and his request was granted. Advocate K.J. was assigned to represent the applicant. She informed the court, by a letter of 24 January 2006, that she saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. She was, inter alia, of the view that the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer had attended the hearing before the appellate court and had actively conducted the applicant’s defence. She further emphasised that the applicant’s request to attend the hearing had been very brief. 14. By a letter of 26 January 2007 the court notified the applicant of the lawyer’s refusal to act on his behalf. It also informed the applicant that the thirty‑day time‑limit for the lodging of a cassation appeal started to run from the date on which that letter was served on the applicant.

4. The applicant was born in 1954 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine. 5. On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyy Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against his employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Building Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), in order to receive salary arrears and other payments. 6. On 26 January 2001 the court found for the applicant and awarded him 9,001.66[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Жовтоводського міського суду). 7. On 9 February 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings. 8. On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise for further payments and compensation. 9. On 19 February 2003 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 1,483.83[2]. 10. The applicant received UAH 650, but the rest of the awards remain unpaid. 11. By letters of 3 October and 27 November 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor by a decision of 27 December 2001 of the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. The Bailiffs' Service also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. 12. By letter of 6 February 2004, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been resumed and that the judgments in the applicant's favour would be enforced gradually in accordance with his place in the list of creditors. However, according to the applicant, the judgments remain unenforced. 13. By the decree of 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the debtor company.

6. The applicants are: (1) Ms Rimma Arapkhanova, born in 1967; (2) Mr Zelimkhan Arapkhanov, born in 1982; (3) Ms Ayshat Arapkhanova, born in 1933; (4) Ms Malika Arapkhanova, born in 1993; (5) Ms Romana Arapkhanova, born in 2000; (6) Mr Amirkhan Arapkhanov, born in 1992; (7) Mr Aslan Arapkhanov, born in 1997; (8) Mr Mukharbek Arapkhanov, born in 1999; (9) Ms Diana Arapkhanova, born in 1994; and (10) Mr Adam Arapkhanov, born in 1996. They live in the village of Galashki, Sunzhenskiy District, in the Republic of Ingushetia. 7. The first applicant was married to Mr Beslan Arapkhanov, born in 1966. They are the parents of the fourth to tenth applicants. The third applicant is the mother of Beslan Arapkhanov; the second applicant is his cousin. 8. At the material time Beslan Arapkhanov lived with his wife and children, the first and fourth to tenth applicants, at 1 Partizanskaya Street in the village of Galashki. The second applicant lived in a neighbouring house at 2 Partizanskaya Street. The third applicant lived at 18 Shosseynaya Street in Galashki. 9. On the night of 19 July 2004 Beslan Arapkhanov, his wife and their children were at their family home. 10. At about 4 a.m. on 20 July 2004 around ten men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns burst into Beslan Arapkhanov’s house. Although the men did not identify themselves, the applicants believed that they were Russian servicemen. 11. The servicemen grabbed Beslan Arapkhanov, handcuffed him, forced him onto the floor and hit him with a machine gun butt. Beslan Arapkhanov started bleeding. In the meantime a serviceman examined his identity papers. 12. The servicemen searched the house without producing a warrant. Eventually they found an assault rifle hidden in a couch. According to the applicants, Beslan Arapkhanov kept the weapon to take revenge on Chechen rebel fighters for the death of his brother. 13. The servicemen locked the first applicant and her children in one of the rooms and dragged Beslan Arapkhanov to the courtyard. Some three minutes later the first applicant heard a burst of machine gun fire. 14. Fifteen or twenty minutes later a man wearing civilian clothes entered the house and unlocked the room in which the first applicant and her children were locked. He introduced himself as Mr K., an investigator from the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Republic of Ingushetia (“the Ingushetia FSB”). Mr K. was accompanied by two unmasked soldiers; he said that they were attesting witnesses and that he was going to search the house. The first applicant told him that the servicemen had already seized the assault rifle and that there was nothing else to search for. 15. Mr K. showed the first applicant a warrant authorising a search of the house owned by a certain Mr Kh. at 7 Partizanskaya Street in Galashki. The first applicant told him that their address was 1 Partizanskaya Street and that her husband’s last name was Arapkhanov, not Kh. The servicemen shouted abuse at her. Mr K. made some notes, which the first applicant assumed were for a search report. 16. The servicemen took the first applicant to the courtyard where she saw her husband lying still and bloodied on the ground. The servicemen did not allow her to approach Beslan Arapkhanov and ordered her to dig up any hidden weapons. She said that there were no weapons but obeyed and began digging. After a while the servicemen started digging as well. Having found nothing, they took the first applicant back inside. 17. Mr K. asked the first applicant to sign the search report, which she did. Then some of the servicemen presented a black plastic bag containing a grenade which they said they had found in the courtyard. 18. The servicemen locked the first applicant and her children in one of the rooms and left. At about 9 a.m. local police officers arrived and released them. 19. Beslan Arapkhanov was buried later that day. (b) The second applicant’s account of the events 20. On the night of 19 July 2004 the second applicant was asleep in his house at 2 Partizanskaya Street. 21. At about 4.30 a.m. on 20 July 2004 the second applicant was woken up by the sound of gunshots. He went outside and saw several vehicles parked at the corner of the street and a group of armed and masked men standing in front of Beslan Arapkhanov’s house. He also glimpsed a man lying on the ground in Beslan Arapkhanov’s courtyard. 22. The armed men beckoned the second applicant and asked for his identity papers, which he produced. They then asked him who lived at 1 Partizanskaya Street; he replied that it was his cousin. The men reported his words to someone via a portable radio transmitter. Then they beat and kicked the second applicant, demanding that he disclose the whereabouts of rebel fighters. 23. The armed men then took the second applicant to a Gazel vehicle parked nearby, where a man in civilian clothes told him that he was in charge of the other men and asked him how Beslan Arapkhanov had obtained the rifle. The second applicant replied that he knew nothing about that. The man continued to question him about his cousin and rebel fighters; some forty or fifty minutes later he sent the second applicant home. 24. On returning home, the second applicant found two men wearing masks and armed with machine guns in his courtyard. One of them hit him in the face with a machine gun butt so that the second applicant lost consciousness. When he regained his senses, he found himself lying on the ground in a pool of blood. 25. Later the same day the second applicant was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with cerebral bruising and numerous abrasions on his face and neck. He was discharged from hospital on 10 August 2004. (c) The search report 26. According to the search report drawn up on 20 July 2004 and submitted by the applicants, the search at 1 Partizanskaya Street, Galashki, had been authorised by a warrant dated 20 July 2004. No further details concerning the warrant were given. 27. The search was carried out by the investigator of the Ingushetia FSB, Lieutenant K., between 5.45 and 6.55 a.m. on 20 July 2004 in the presence of the first applicant and two attesting witnesses, Mr G. and Mr E., servicemen of military unit no. 3810 of Zheleznovodsk. 28. The report states that the aim of the search was to discover hidden weapons and ammunition and that an assault rifle magazine without cartridges, a holster and an F-1 grenade were eventually found. 29. On 19 July 2004 investigators in charge of a criminal case concerning a number of rebel attacks committed on the territory of Ingushetia obtained intelligence information that insurgents were probably hiding at 1 Partizanskaya Street in Galashki and were storing armaments there. 30. On 20 July 2004 the North Caucasus Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in case no. 04560060 in relation to unlawful insurgent activities and ordered an urgent search of Beslan Arapkhanov’s house in order to find members of illegal armed groups. Mr K., an investigator of the Ingushetia FSB, was assigned to carry out the search. 31. At about 4 a.m. on 20 July 2004 Mr K., accompanied by servicemen of a special unit of the Federal Security Service of Russia (“the Russian FSB”), arrived in Galashki. 32. Facing a serious risk of armed resistance, the Russian FSB servicemen surrounded Beslan Arapkhanov’s house. 33. Some of the Russian FSB servicemen entered the house, arrested Beslan Arapkhanov and handcuffed him. Later they took the handcuffs off as they needed the arrestee to unlock all the doors in the house. 34. While the servicemen were searching the storage room, Beslan Arapkhanov suddenly took a loaded Kalashnikov rifle from its hiding place, kicked out a piece of plywood covering a window and jumped out of the window. He fired a shot at the servicemen in the backyard. Since there was a risk that he might continue firing, some of the servicemen returned fire and killed him. 35. The second applicant stepped out of a neighbouring house and started walking towards the scene of the incident. The servicemen ordered him not to move and to show that he was not carrying any arms, but he disobeyed. Some of them hit the second applicant several times with machine gun butts to preclude him from acting unlawfully. As a result the second applicant sustained cerebral concussion and a wound to the forehead that qualified as minor bodily injuries. 36. In the course of the search of Beslan Arapkhanov’s house the servicemen seized a Kalashnikov rifle inscribed with the number 6682, a pouch containing five cartridges, sixty-nine 7.62 mm calibre bullets and F‑1 and RGD-5 grenades. 37. During the search the first applicant explained to the FSB servicemen that her husband had kept the rifle at home in order to take revenge on rebels who had killed his brother. 38. On 21 July 2004 the Nazran District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia declared the search of 20 July 2004 lawful. 39. Shortly after the killing of Beslan Arapkhanov the applicants began to complain about it to various State agencies and officials, such as the Russian State Duma, the Russian President, the Head of the Russian FSB, the President of the Republic of Ingushetia and prosecutors’ offices at different levels. 40. On 21 July 2004 employees of the Office of the President and of the Government of the Republic of Ingushetia visited the first applicant. They told her that her husband had been killed by mistake and gave her 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB), apparently as an allowance for the loss of the breadwinner. A few days later several employees of the Ingushetian Government again visited the first applicant, examined her household and promised her financial support; it is unclear whether the first applicant received it. 41. On 24 July 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the prosecutor’s office of the Sunzhenskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”). 42. On 28 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into Beslan Arapkhanov’s killing under Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code (“murder”). The prosecutor’s decision stated that, while carrying out operational and search measures, servicemen of the Ingushetian FSB had used firearms against Beslan Arapkhanov, who had died of his wounds on the spot. On the same date the prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that an investigation had been opened into the killing of her husband. 43. At the end of July and beginning of August 2004 the investigators questioned several inhabitants of the village of Galashki as witnesses in the case concerning Beslan Arapkhanov’s death. 44. On 29 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office ordered that Beslan Arapkhanov’s corpse be exhumed and an autopsy carried out. 45. Between 29 July and 27 August 2004 an expert from the Forensics Bureau of the Republic of Ingushetia conducted the autopsy and drew up a post-mortem report. According to the report, Beslan Arapkhanov’s death was caused by numerous gunshot wounds to the head, body and extremities. The expert also found bruises on the corpse’s wrists, possibly caused by handcuffs. 46. On 30 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 04600044 in connection with her husband’s death. 47. On the same date the first applicant was questioned. She described the events of 20 July 2004. She stated, in particular, that Mr K. had shown her a search warrant in the name of Mr Kh., their neighbour, and his address at 7 Partizanskaya Street, Galashki. The first applicant had objected, stating that the warrant had not been drawn up in their family name or their address but the servicemen had shouted abuse at her. 48. On an unspecified date the second applicant was granted victim status in case no. 04600044. 49. On 10 August 2004 the Forensics Bureau of the Republic of Ingushetia issued a medical death certificate in respect of Beslan Arapkhanov, according to which the death had been caused by fractures to the skull combined with brain injuries and a perforating gunshot wound to the head. 50. On 25 August 2004 the first and second applicants asked the district prosecutor’s office to provide them with copies of documents from the case file, but their request does not appear to have been granted. On 20 September 2004 the first applicant sent a similar request to the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia. 51. On 23 September 2004 case no. 04600044 was transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit (“the circuit prosecutor’s office”). On the same date the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia notified the first applicant accordingly. 52. On 24 September 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia provided the applicant with copies of certain documents from the case file but refused to give her copies of the entire file. 53. On 29 October 2004 the circuit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that case no. 04600044 had been transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”). 54. On 16 November 2004 the SRJI, acting on behalf of the first applicant, asked the district prosecutor’s office to update them on progress in the investigation. 55. On 17 December 2004 an FSB officer informed the first applicant that her complaint to the head of the Russian FSB had been forwarded to the circuit prosecutor’s office. 56. On 26 December 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 04062 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”). 57. On 22 January 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office took up the investigation in case no. 04600040 (it appears that there was a clerical error in the case file number, which should read “04600044”) and notified the first applicant accordingly. It appears that at some point they changed the case number. 58. On 25 January 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that they had received the complaint that she had addressed to the Russian President and that the investigation into her husband’s death was pending. 59. On 1 February 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first and second applicants that the preliminary investigation time-limit in case no. 34/01/0010-05 had been extended until 28 March 2005. 60. On 2 and 7 February 2005 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaints to the unit prosecutor’s office. 61. On 22 February 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant that the investigation was under way. 62. On 23 May 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office transferred the investigation file in case no. 34/01/0010-05 to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 and notified the first and second applicants accordingly. 63. On 22 June 2005 the SRJI asked the unit prosecutor’s office to update them on progress in the investigation in case no. 34/01/0010-05. On 26 August 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office replied that they had transferred the case to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 64. On 24 October 2005 the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia notified the first applicant that on 23 October 2004 criminal case no. 04600044 had been transferred to the North-Caucasus Military Circuit. 65. On 3 December 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the case had been transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 66. On 7 July 2006 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia informed a member of parliament of Ingushetia, inter alia, that the criminal investigation into the killing of Beslan Arapkhanov had been terminated on 30 May 2005. 67. On 12 April 2007 the UGA prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the criminal proceedings against the two servicemen of the Ingushetia FSB, Mr P. and Mr V., had been terminated by the unit prosecutor’s office on 7 December 2006 for lack of corpus delicti and that there were no grounds for quashing that decision. 68. On 10 May 2007 the SRJI asked the unit prosecutor’s office to provide the first applicant with a copy of the decision of 7 December 2006 and to allow her to study the case file. 69. On an unspecified date the first applicant challenged the decision of the unit prosecutor’s office of 7 December 2006 before the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia. 70. On 16 July 2007 the Sunzhenskiy District Court decided to transfer the case to a military court, pursuant to the rules on the jurisdiction of the relevant subject matter. 71. On 9 January 2008 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI that the first applicant could study the case file in the premises of the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 29483. 72. On 28 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Beslan Arapkhanov’s killing under Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code. 73. On 22 January of an unspecified year the investigation was transferred to the unit prosecutor’s office. 74. A number of witnesses were questioned in the course of the investigation. Some of them were servicemen of the Russian FSB, who took part in the arrest of Beslan Arapkhanov. For their own protection and that of their families, their real names were not disclosed by the Government. 75. On an unspecified date Mr I. (it is unclear whether the Government provided his real name or an alias) was questioned and stated that on 20 July 2004 he had been in command of a special unit of the Russian FSB that had ensured the security of investigators searching Beslan Arapkhanov’s house. As it was thought likely that insurgents would be hiding in the house, the special unit servicemen entered the house first and arrested Beslan Arapkhanov. While in the storage room, Beslan Arapkhanov suddenly took a loaded Kalashnikov rifle from its hiding place, kicked out a piece of plywood covering a window and jumped out of the window. He fired a shot at two servicemen who were standing in the backyard. They fired back and killed Beslan Arapkhanov. 76. The two servicemen who used firearms against Beslan Arapkhanov belonged to a special unit of the Russian FSB (military unit no. 35690). Their code names were “Ruby” and “Uran”. The investigation could not question them because they had died in the course of a special anti-terrorist operation on 3 September 2004. 77. All the other servicemen of the special unit of the Russian FSB who were present during the search of 20 July 2004 were questioned on unspecified dates. They confirmed that Beslan Arapkhanov had showed armed resistance during his arrest and that the firearms had been used against him lawfully. 78. On an unspecified date the corpse of Beslan Arapkhanov was exhumed. A post-mortem examination established that the death had been caused by gunshot wounds. There were also bruises on each of Beslan Arapkhanov’s wrists, as well as a wound measuring five centimetres by two centimetres on his left wrist, probably caused by handcuffs. 79. On an unspecified date the investigators questioned a deputy head of the Government of Ingushetia, who submitted that on 21 July 2004 he and two other officials had visited the first applicant and given her a funeral subsidy from the Government of Ingushetia in the amount of RUB 100,000. 80. On 7 December 2006 the unit prosecutor’s office terminated the criminal investigation for lack of evidence of a crime, as the servicemen had lawfully used firearms during the arrest to prevent Beslan Arapkhanov from injuring their fellow servicemen. 81. On 3 December 2007 the deputy of the Main Military Prosecutor of Russia quashed the decision of 7 December 2006. 82. On an unspecified date Mr K., former investigator of the Ingushetia FSB, was questioned and stated that there had been no breaches of statutory procedure in the course of the search of 20 July 2004. 83. The investigation into Beslan Arapkhanov’s killing was reopened. 84. A complaint lodged by the first applicant about the unlawful termination of the criminal proceedings was examined on an unspecified date by the Nalchik Garrison Military Court and dismissed as unsubstantiated. 85. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any materials from the case file concerning the killing of Beslan Arapkhanov. Relying on information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would breach Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings. 86. On 22 July 2004 the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office that he had been severely beaten by a group of servicemen armed with machine guns. He requested that those responsible be punished. 87. On 19 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office asked Sunzhenskiy District Hospital to produce the second applicant’s medical record, which contained information on the injuries he had sustained on 20 July 2004. They commented that the request was “in connection with the investigation in criminal case no. 04600044 concerning B[eslan] Arapkhanov’s death and the infliction of bodily injuries on Z[elimkhan] Arapkhanov”. 88. On 23 July 2004 the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office that federal servicemen had inflicted bodily injuries on him. 89. The second applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 90. In order to determine the degree of severity of the bodily injuries, the investigators ordered a forensic expert examination of the second applicant. The experts established that upon admission to hospital the second applicant had been diagnosed with cerebral bruising and numerous abrasions on the face and abdomen. The cerebral bruising had not been confirmed by objective clinical neurological data and therefore could not be subjected to forensic assessment. A scar on the right side of the forehead was assessed as a minor bodily injury. 91. It is not clear whether a separate set of criminal proceedings was instituted in respect of the injuries sustained by the second applicant or whether the investigation into the incident formed part of the investigation in case no. 04600044. Nor is it clear whether any progress was made in the investigation of the beating of the second applicant. 92. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any materials from the case file concerning the bodily injuries sustained by the second applicant.

5. The applicants are commercial companies authorised to provide services in the area of passenger transport. They are located in Râmnicu-Vâlcea. 6. On 23 September 2004 Vâlcea County Council adopted a decision which set out a programme of passenger transport for the local area for a period of three years. Within the programme, the Drăgăşani – Băbeni – Râmnicu-Vâlcea route was considered as an individual route. Following a public tender, an association consisting of two companies was granted a licence to transport passengers along that route. 7. On 15 April 2005 Vâlcea County Council modified its previous decision and adopted a new programme of passenger transport for a period of three years, covering 2005 to 2008. Within the new programme, the Drăgăşani – Băbeni – Râmnicu-Vâlcea route was grouped together with six other routes. Another public tender took place, and the applicant companies submitted a tender for the group. They subsequently received licences to operate public transportation services for the seven routes in the group. 8. On 24 May 2005 one of the two companies which lost their licence for the Drăgăşani – Băbeni – Râmnicu-Vâlcea route asked the courts to annul Vâlcea County Council’s decision of 15 April 2005, and to oblige the local authorities to adopt a new decision in which the route in question could again be considered as an individual route. 9. The first applicant company requested (and was granted) leave to intervene in the proceedings in order to defend its own interests. Through its submissions, the applicant company argued that the decision adopted by the council on 15 April 2005 was in accordance with the law, and asked the Argeş County Court to dismiss the action. 10. On 13 February 2006 the Argeş County Court held that, by grouping routes together, the county council had acted arbitrarily and had limited access for other competitors in the public transport market. The court considered that the routes had been grouped together without any economic or geographical considerations. The court therefore ordered the county council to re-analyse route no. 047 (the Drăgăşani – Băbeni – Râmnicu-Vâlcea route), and to proceed to a new public tender of the route as an individual route. The court used the following terms: “We consider that, by grouping together these routes, the creation of a monopoly on the road transport market was encouraged, thereby breaching the principles of free competition. In conclusion, the court holds that it is necessary to partially revoke decision no. 63/15.04.2005 on the approval of the programme for passenger transport... for the period 2005 to 2008 in respect of offer 27, group of routes no. 11, route no. 047 Drăgăşani– Băbeni– Râmnicu-Vâlcea. Considering that ... Order no. 1842/2001 was repealed by Order no. 1987/2005 ..., it follows that the defendant should re-analyse route 047 Drăgăşani-Băbeni-Râmnicu-Vâlcea as an individual route in view of these legal provisions and, taking into account the results, proceed to a new public tender.” 11. The first applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against this judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of a legitimate interest for its request, and that the partial annulment of a public tender would be unlawful. 12. On 28 June 2006 the Piteşti Court of Appeal rejected the first applicant company’s appeal on points of law with final effect. The court explained that there were preconditions imposed by law which had to be fulfilled before a decision to group together certain transport routes could be taken by a local authority. Bearing in mind that in the current case those requirements had not been observed, the lower court had correctly annulled the administrative decision in question in the context of the request before it, namely in respect of route no. 047. The Court of Appeal explained that the lower court had ordered the county council to conduct an analysis of whether or not route no. 047 might be grouped together with other routes, in compliance with the legal provisions in force. Lastly, the court held that non-compliance with those obligations would give those whose interests had been negatively affected the right to request reparation for any consequent damage. 13. On 6 July 2006 Vâlcea County Council adopted a new decision; modifying the programme of public transport for the period 2005-08 by putting out to public tender all seven routes from group no. 11 as individual routes. Consequently, on 26 July 2006 the applicant companies received a letter from the Romanian Traffic Authority (Autoritatea Rutieră Română) informing them that they had to hand over their licences for the entire group of seven routes within thirty days of the final decision in a new public tender. 14. On 15 June 2007 the new public tender was organised for the seven routes in question. The applicant companies did not participate. 15. On 2 October 2006 the applicant companies lodged administrative proceedings requesting the annulment of the decision made by Vâlcea County Council on 6 July 2006. They argued that the Argeş County Court, by its judgment of 13 February 2006, had ordered the analysis as an individual route of only one route out of the group of seven. They further alleged that, by withdrawing their licences for the remaining six routes and organising a new public tender for all of the routes in the group, the authorities had acted unlawfully. 16. On 23 January 2007 the Vâlcea County Court rejected the applicant companies’ complaint. The court held that the contested decision had been adopted in accordance with the judgment of 13 February 2006, but also in compliance with new regulations adopted by the Ministry of Transport; regulations which no longer provided for the possibility of grouping routes together for economic or geographic purposes. 17. The applicant companies’ appeal on points of law against that judgment was rejected with final effect by the Timişoara Court of Appeal on 6 December 2007. The Court of Appeal considered that the lower court had made a correct analysis of the facts. 18. The president of the panel of three judges added a separate dissenting opinion to the judgment on the appeal on points of law. He considered that, by adopting the decision of 6 July 2006, Vâlcea County Council had not properly enforced the judgment of 13 February 2006, and had therefore breached the applicant companies’ right to property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The judge explained that the applicant companies had participated in a public tender, and had won the right to exploit the group of seven routes in question. Although the county council had been ordered by final judgment to re‑analyse only one of the routes above as an individual route, they had adopted without any legal basis a new decision which considered all of the routes individually. 19. On 5 October 2006 the first applicant company requested before the administrative court the annulment of the Romanian Traffic Authority’s decision of 26 July 2006 to withdraw its licences for the entire group of routes. The first applicant company also requested that the enforcement of that decision be suspended pending the delivery of a final judgment in the case. 20. The first applicant company argued that the contested decision prevented it and its associate (the second applicant company) from participating in the next public tender for the same route. The applicant companies further argued that the withdrawal of their licences had not been in compliance with Article 65 of Order no. 1987/2005, which set out the grounds on which licences could be withdrawn. 21. On 18 December 2006 the Piteşti Court of Appeal rejected the action as submitted by the first applicant company. The court held that the applicant had not proved the alleged damage caused by the decision of the Romanian Traffic Authority, since it could participate in the new tender. In addition, there was no proof that the applicant company would be prevented from participating in the new tender. The court further explained that, should the applicant company consider itself prejudiced by the administrative act which was in dispute, it could request damages from those responsible for any consequent loss. 22. The first applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment. It alleged that the licences for the entire group of routes could not be lawfully withdrawn, since not all of them had been annulled by a court judgment. The first applicant company argued that, in accordance with Article 66 of Order no. 1987/2005, a company whose licence for a certain route had been withdrawn could not participate in a new tender for the same route. 23. On 25 April 2007 the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided to allow the first applicant company’s request, and partially annulled the decision of the Romanian Traffic Authority, which was upheld only in respect of the licence for route no. 047. The High Court considered that the licences held by the applicant company for the other six routes of offer 27, group no. 11 constituted “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that there was no reason to order their remittal through an administrative act.

5. The applicant newspaper published a series of articles in June-September 2001, criticising the authorities of Moldova for their actions in respect of the break-away region of Moldova (“Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” or “MRT”, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004‑...) and reproducing harsh criticism of the Moldovan Government by certain MRT and Russian leaders. 6. The applicant published the articles under the following headlines: “The State Duma of the Russian Federation has annexed Moldova and [MRT] to the Union of Russia and Belarus”, “There shall be no meeting...”, “The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged that the withdrawal of Russian troops from [MRT] may affect stability in the region”, “That’s why NATO is what it is, or a holy place is never empty”, “The black list”, “A Nobel Prize for the leader”, “If the person disappears, there will be no problem?”, “So is it a blockade or WTO conditions?”, “One does not choose one’s neighbours”, “[MRT] is much closer to WTO conditions than Moldova” and “Mission impossible”. 7. In these articles, the applicant reproduced, literally or in a summary, or commented upon declarations by Moldovan, Russian and MRT authorities in respect of the negotiation process between Moldova and MRT, as well as economic, (geo-)political, social and other issues. In a number of these articles the actions and declarations of high-ranking Moldovan officials were harshly criticised. The applicant emphasised, however, that it did not call for any violent or unlawful act and, in the impugned articles, expressly qualified such expressions as “to annihilate” (“убрать”) as meaning “political annihilation [of MRT leader]”. 8. On 5 November 2001 the Prosecutor General of Moldova initiated court proceedings against the applicant in the Economic Court of Moldova. The applicant was accused of “endangering, through its publications, national security and territorial integrity together with public safety and order in Moldova”, by “lending open support to the unconstitutional regime of the self-proclaimed [MRT], promoting the separatist ideas expressed by its leaders and misrepresenting the essence of legal actions of Moldovan authorities and international organisations in solving the problems of the regions to the East of the Dniester”. The Prosecutor General illustrated his request with two examples of phrases from the impugned articles, namely: “The lack of legal balance between the [MRT] and the Republic of Moldova, as a recognised State, allows the latter to approach the negotiations from a position of superiority and dictatorship, which is the main reason for the slow pace of the negotiation process”; “In the circumstances of an ongoing political, diplomatic and economic blockade of MRT by the Republic of Moldova we consider impossible a meeting between the Presidents of MRT and the Republic of Moldova”. Since the applicant’s publications, while formally presented as an exercise of the right to inform the public, were contrary to Article 32 of the Constitution and Article 4 of the Press Act (see below) and the applicant had been warned against continuing to violate the law, the court was requested to order the closure of the newspaper. 9. On 30 November 2001 the Economic Court of Moldova accepted the claims of the Prosecutor General and ordered the closure of the newspaper. The court recalled the submissions of the parties and cited the applicable domestic law. It referred in its judgment to the headlines listed in paragraph 7 above and stated that it considered the articles to have: “exceeded the limits of publicity set out in Article 4 of the Press Act and endangered the territorial integrity of Moldova, national security and public safety and created the potential for disorder and crime, violating Article 32 of the Constitution.” The court also stated that systematic violations of the Press Act could be sanctioned with the closure of a newspaper under Article 7 of the same Act (see below). 10. In response to the applicant’s arguments the court found that: “Article 10 of [the Convention] provides for freedom of expression ... (§1) but the exercise of this freedom carries with it duties and responsibilities, and may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law (§2)”. 11. The court did not specify which expression or phrase constituted a threat and gave no further detail. It added that the articles did not represent a fair summary of public statements by public authorities and thus could not be immune from liability under Article 27 of the Press Act (see paragraph 17 below). The court found that the Prosecutor General had contacted the publisher before initiating the proceedings, as required by law. The applicant was ordered to pay court fees of 180 Moldovan lei. 12. The applicant appealed, arguing that it had simply informed the public about current events and about the Government’s attitude and actions towards the authorities of the MRT. It relied on Article 32 of the Constitution, Article 4 of the Press Act and Article 10 of the Convention. 13. On 5 February 2002 the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court of Moldova upheld that judgment, repeating the arguments of the lower court. The court found, inter alia, that: “the lower court correctly assessed the facts and rejected the [applicant’s] objections. ... It was correctly decided that no violation of Article 10 of the Convention had been committed, since although that Article provides for the right to freedom of expression, it carries with it duties and responsibilities and its exercise is subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law”. The court rejected the applicant’s submission that the economic courts were not competent to examine a freedom of expression case since it had been registered as a joint-stock company. It also rejected the submission that the Prosecutor General had not followed the proper pre-trial procedure and was not competent to initiate the relevant proceedings. 14. On 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the two judgments. It also essentially repeated the reasoning of the Economic Court and found that the applicant: “has exceeded the limits of restrictions on freedom of expression, determined in Article 4 of the Press Act, through some of the publications annexed to the file which undermine national security, territorial integrity and public safety, the protection of order and the prevention of crime”. 15. The newspaper was subsequently re-registered under the name “Kommersant-Plus”.

5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sosnovyy Bor in the Leningrad Region. 6. On 20 May 2001 the applicant was arrested. On 23 May 2001 he was placed in detention. 7. By judgment of 6 September 2001 the Sosnovyy Bor Town Court of the Leningrad Region convicted him of robbery and sentenced him to five years and three months' imprisonment. On 27 March 2002 the Leningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and ordered that the case be remitted for an additional investigation. 8. On 8 August 2002 the Town Court again convicted the applicant of robbery. It sentenced him to four years and eight months' imprisonment. The applicant brought an appeal. 9. On 11 February 2004 the Regional Court held an appeal hearing. By a decision of the same date, it changed the crime's qualification and upheld the rest of the trial court's judgment. 10. In the period from 30 May 2001 to 2 March 2004 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg. 11. The applicant submitted that he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that the prisoners had had to take turns to sleep. Besides, his cells had been dirty and had lacked ventilation. He also submitted that the food had been of poor quality. 12. According to the Government's submissions, the applicant was held in following cells: (a) cell no. 840 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees; (b) cell no. 844 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees; (c) cell no. 941 that measured 21,367 square metres and accommodated thirteen detainees; (d) cell no. 859 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees. 13. The Government conceded that the cells had been “overcrowded”. They pointed out, however, that the applicant at all times had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bed linen and that there had been enough space to move around and to do exercises in the cells. 14. They further submitted that the cells had been naturally and artificially ventilated and lit. The average air temperature in winter had been +18ºC and in summer +22ºC. The cells had been equipped with heating devices and a dining table. Toilet facilities had been separated from the cells' living area by a partition of 1.5 m in height. The applicant had never complained to the authorities of any insects or rodents. 15. The food had been of a proper quality. The applicant had never been limited in fresh water. He had had a possibility of taking a daily one-hour walk. As to the medical assistance, he had undergone various medical examinations and had been treated against tuberculosis. The appropriate treatment had resulted in the favourable dynamics of his disease.

3. The applicant, a former military student, was born in 1981 and lives in Yalova. 4. On an unspecified date the applicant was expelled from the naval academy in accordance with the Law of Military Academies (Law no. 4466) for failing his class twice. 5. On 1 August 2001 he brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the expulsion order. Claiming that his exam in Mathematics 1 had not been graded correctly, he demanded the reassessment of his paper in the relevant subject. 6. On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Military Administrative Court refused the applicant's request. The court acknowledged that the reassessment of the applicant's paper by a group of three experts revealed that the paper had indeed been misgraded, yet even the modified grade did not entitle the applicant to pass his class. 7. Upon the applicant's request for rectification, on 5 March 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court annulled the expulsion order on account of procedural illegalities. 8. The applicant subsequently retook the exams he had previously failed, yet failed them once again, which led to the issue of a second expulsion order by the naval academy. 9. On 25 July 2003 the applicant brought another case before the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the annulment of the expulsion order. He again requested reassessment of his paper in Mathematics 1. 10. On an unspecified date an expert report was submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court which confirmed the accuracy of the grading of the applicant's exam paper. 11. On 29 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing, where it dismissed the applicant's request for annulment of the expulsion order. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to this court prior to the hearing was not communicated to the applicant. 12. On 12 January 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant's rectification request.

8. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Krasnodar. 9. On 26 June 1998 the applicant had a loud quarrel with his neighbour and assaulted him. Further to the neighbour's complaint, the police opened criminal proceedings against the applicant. 10. On 27 October 1998 the applicant was taken in custody and placed in investigations ward no. IZ-18/3 of Novorossiysk[*] (ИЗ 18/3 г. Новороссийска, “the facility”). 11. On 5 November 1998 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk found the applicant guilty of disorderly behaviour, an offence under Article 213 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. 12. The applicant served the sentence in the same facility. He was released on 28 April 1999. 13. The applicant stayed in cells nos. 11 and 3. 14. According to the applicant, each cell measured approximately 42 m2 and accommodated 42 to 51 inmates. Inmates took turns to sleep. Thirty sleeping places were available, of which two were occupied with water receptacles for washing and flushing the toilet. The water containers were needed as running water was only available for one hour three times a day. No bedding was provided to inmates, save for tattered cotton mattresses. Between 5 November and 28 December 1998 in cell no. 11 the applicant had to sleep without a mattress on metal plates, covering himself with an old, dirty and worn cotton rag. 15. The Government did not dispute the cell measurements suggested by the applicant. They submitted that each cell had had 30 sleeping places, a full set of bedding had been distributed to each inmate and sleeping berths had been made of metal plates and covered with wadded mattresses. 16. According to the applicant, the ventilation in cells was only switched on for a few minutes when “inspectors” visited the facility. Windows were covered with steel plates leaving an open slot of about 10 cm. There was no fresh air in the cells. 17. The Government submitted that cells had been equipped with ventilation. It was switched on and off “in accordance with the schedule approved by the facility director” (order no. 41 of 26 May 1998). A copy of the schedule has not been produced to the Court. On “especially hot” days, doors were open to ensure a better circulation of air. At the material time windows had been covered with metal shields which were removed in 2002. 18. According to the applicant, the lavatory pan sat on an elevation of 0.5 m above the floor. A partition of 1.1 m in height separated it from the rest of the cell. Occasionally an inmate hung a sheet to have some privacy. According to the Government, lavatory pans were located at the entrance and separated from the living area by a brick partition measuring 1.3 m in height and width. 19. According to the applicant, inmates were given one piece of soap per week for the entire cell population. No laundry detergent was available. According to the Government, each inmate received 200 g of washing soap and 70 g of laundry detergent each month. Bathing was possible “regularly”. 20. The applicant claimed that a thick, black and footworn layer of dirt had covered the floor. Inmates' clothing swarmed with lice, spiders and other insects. Between 5 November 1998 and 15 January 1999 cell no. 11 was not once sanitised. Between 15 January and 28 April 1999 cell no. 3 was sanitised on one occasion. In the Government's view, the sanitary and hygienic conditions of the cells were up to the applicable standards and insecticide was distributed every month. 21. According to the applicant, the facility administration took complaints, requests and letters from inmates once a day, between 4.30 and 5 a.m. According to the Government, complaints and requests were taken from inmates during the morning inspection of cells starting at 8 a.m. 22. The applicant further submitted that the food ration had consisted of bread, millet porridge, boiled pearl barley and no-meat soup. In six months inmates were fed on five occasions with pea soup, soup with pasta and boiled rice. 23. In April 1999 the applicant contracted scabies and he received sulphuric and benzyl ointments to treat himself. He was not isolated from other inmates. The applicant's cellmates who contracted scabies and other skin diseases were not taken out of the cell either. The applicant submits that tuberculosis-infected inmates spent, on several occasions, a few days in his cell. According to the Government, infected inmates were isolated in a special wing. The applicant twice fell ill with a high temperature and he was treated with sulphadimisin and aspirin. From 13 to 20 April 1999 the applicant underwent outpatient treatment for dermatitis. 24. By the time of his release, the applicant had lost 15 kilograms in weight, he felt short of breath while walking, tired easily, could not run, and suffered from pustules and itching all over his body. 25. On 5 May 1999 the applicant was examined in clinic no. 1 of Novorossiysk and issued with a certificate confirming that he suffered from emaciation. 26. On 30 July 2002 the applicant filed a civil action for damages against the Treasury of the Russian Federation. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by “inhuman and degrading” conditions of detention in facility no. 18/3. He described the conditions of his detention in detail and relied, in particular, on Article 3 of the Convention. 27. On 1 October 2002 the Pervomayskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region dismissed the applicant's action. It held that the applicant had failed to prove that the officials of facility no. 18/3 had been liable for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him. The court noted that the applicant had served his sentence upon the lawful conviction by a competent court and, therefore, the responsibility of the treasury was not engaged. 28. On 14 November 2002 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld, on an appeal by the applicant, the judgment of 1 October 2002.

9. The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1955 and lives in Diyarbakır. 10. The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on 20 February 1994, are disputed by the parties. 11. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-18). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 19-21). Documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 22-67). 12. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application the applicant and her family were living in the Sesveren hamlet of Karaorman village, located within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Kulp, near Diyarbakır, south-east Turkey. 13. On 20 February 1994 approximately 200 soldiers from the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters came to the applicant’s hamlet and forced the villagers out of their houses. The villagers were herded together into the village square and the soldiers began to burn the villagers’ houses. 14. One of the soldiers then read out a list of names of six male villagers: Halit Akdeniz (35 years old), İrfan Akdeniz (18 years old), Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi (35 years old), Ziya Çiçek (22 years old), Faik Akdeniz (35 years old), and finally the applicant’s son Mehdi Akdeniz (22 years old) (hereinafter “the six persons”). The six persons seemed to have been identified by a masked man who was with the gendarme officers. The soldiers then beat up the six persons; the applicant’s son was the subject of the worst treatment. The six persons were then taken away, out of sight of the villagers. 15. The soldiers stayed in the village for approximately two hours and then walked with the group of six persons to another hamlet, approximately 1.5 kilometres away, where they got into waiting vehicles and drove away. 16. Eye-witnesses, who were held in detention together with the applicant’s son, subsequently informed the applicant that Mehdi Akdeniz had been held at Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters for five days. He had been tortured whilst being detained and according to the eye-witnesses, he had received the worst treatment of the six persons. 17. Eye-witnesses confirmed that in Silvan, where he was held for one week before being taken to Diyarbakır, he was also in a very poor condition. 18. The applicant has heard nothing further about the whereabouts or fate of her son since that time. She has brought several applications, both orally and in writing, to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”) and tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain information about her son. 19. No operation was carried out in the Kulp-Sesveren area on 20 February 1994 and, according to the custody records, neither the applicant’s son nor any of the other five persons mentioned were taken into custody or detained. 20. Between 1992 and 1993 the Sesveren hamlet was attacked by members of the PKK and the inhabitants of the hamlet fled from their homes because of intimidation by the PKK. 21. On 11 May 1994 the applicant was informed by the Diyarbakır Court that, according to the custody records, Mehmet Şen (sic.) had not been taken into custody. 22. The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties. 23. According to a record of arrest, drawn up on 28 February 1994 and signed by three gendarme officers and four gendarme soldiers from the Kulp gendarmerie, five of the six persons, namely, Halit Akdeniz, M. Şirin Allahverdi, Ziya Çiçek, Faik Akdeniz and İrfan Akdeniz were arrested in an operation carried out by the gendarmerie. The reason for the operation was the fact that the gendarmerie had been informed, by reliable sources, that these persons had been aiding and abetting the PKK. The report further states that the five men had various injuries on their bodies obtained as a result of their attempts at escape and also of the use of force. 24. On unspecified dates these five persons were questioned by a gendarme commander. All but Faik Akdeniz denied ever having been members of the PKK. Faik Akdeniz stated that he had been a member briefly. All five men stated that Karaorman village had often been visited by PKK members who forced the villagers to give them food. 25. On 8 March 1994 the five men were questioned by a judge at the Diyarbakır Court. The judge then ordered the release of four of them. Faik Akdeniz’s detention on remand was ordered by the judge. 26. The applicant, in a petition she submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court on 11 May 1994, informed the Prosecutor that her son had been detained by members of the security forces on 20 February 1994 in her hamlet of Sesveren. She further stated that she had not heard from him since that date and that she was concerned for his life. She asked to be informed about her son’s fate. 27. According to a handwritten note, written by the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court on the applicant’s above mentioned petition of 11 May 1994, the applicant’s son was not recorded in custody records. 28. On 29 December 1994 the Ministry of Justice’s International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate (hereinafter “the Directorate”) sent a letter to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court and informed him about the application introduced with the Commission by the applicant. The Prosecutor was requested to question the applicant in relation to her complaints and to open an investigation into her allegations. 29. In his letter of 30 December 1994 the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court requested the Prosecutor in the town of Kulp to take the steps requested in the letter of the Directorate. 30. The commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters was requested on 6 January 1995 by the Kulp Prosecutor to summon the applicant, as well as the five persons who had allegedly been detained together with the applicant’s son (see paragraph 14 above), to the prosecutor’s office. The Prosecutor also asked for a certain Cevdet Yılmaz and one Reşat Pamuk, both of whom were apparently living in the applicant’s village, to be summoned. 31. According to a report, which was drawn up on 17 March 1995 by three gendarme soldiers from the Sivrice gendarme station – located near the applicant’s village of Karaorman – and which was submitted to the Kulp Prosecutor, the persons referred to in the Kulp Prosecutor’s letter of 6 January 1995 had left the village for an unknown destination because of terrorist incidents. This report was subsequently sent to the Prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır Court. 32. On 26 July 1995 the Kulp Prosecutor sent a letter, this time to the commander of the Kulp Gendarme Brigade, and asked for the applicant and the other seven persons mentioned above to be summoned to his office. 33. According to a report, drawn up on 27 August 1995 by two gendarme soldiers and sent to the Kulp Prosecutor, the persons referred to in the Kulp Prosecutor’s letter of 26 July 1995 had left the village for an unknown destination three years previously because of terrorist incidents. 34. Similar correspondence between the Prosecutors and the gendarmerie setting out the former’s unsuccessful attempts to find the applicant and the other seven persons continued until June 1996, when Halit Akdeniz, one of the six persons who was allegedly detained at the same time as the applicant’s son, was located. 35. In a statement taken by the Kulp Prosecutor on 13 June 1996, Halit Akdeniz stated that a large number of soldiers had come to the village in February 1994 and gathered the villagers outside the village. They then set fire to the houses in the village. He, his son İrfan, the applicant’s son Mehdi, and the other three persons had been singled out by the soldiers and ill-treated in the village. They had then been taken to the Sivrice gendarme station where they had stayed that evening. The following morning they had been taken to the Kulp Commando Brigade where they had been detained for four days during which they were blindfolded, beaten up and questioned. At the end of the four days they had been brought to the Kulp Central gendarme Station where the applicant’s son Mehdi had been separated from the rest of them and he had not been seen again. They had continued to be detained for another 15 days and at the end of their detention all but Faik Akdeniz had been released. 36. Also on 13 June 1996 the Kulp Prosecutor questioned İrfan Akdeniz who confirmed the version of events as set out by his father above. He also added that Mehdi Akdeniz had been beaten up more severely than the rest of them. 37. On 20 June 1996 the Kulp Prosecutor took a statement from Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi, another one of the six persons allegedly detained together with the applicant’s son. Mr Allahverdi, who gave a remarkably similar statement to that of Halit and İrfan Akdeniz, added that the applicant’s son Mehdi Akdeniz had been identified by the itirafçı[1] who had came to the village with the soldiers in February 1994. 38. On 2 August 1996 Cevdet Yılmaz (see paragraph 30 above) was found in a prison in Elazığ. He refused to go to the Prosecutor’s office to make a statement on the ground that he was protesting against the Turkish courts. 39. The Kulp Prosecutor took a statement from the applicant on 15 August 1996. In her statement the applicant confirmed her account of events as set out above (see paragraphs 13 to 18 above). She finally asked the Prosecutor for information about her son’s fate. 40. On 19 August 1996 the statements taken by the Kulp Prosecutor from Halit Akdeniz, İrfan Akdeniz and Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi were forwarded to the Prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır Court. The Kulp Prosecutor further stated that his efforts to find Faik Akdeniz and Ziya Çiçek would continue. 41. Faik Akdeniz was questioned on 16 September 1996 by the Kulp Prosecutor. Mr Akdeniz also gave a remarkably similar statement to those made by Halit Akdeniz, İrfan Akdeniz, Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi and the applicant. 42. On 5 December 1996 the Kulp Prosecutor sent a letter to the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters and asked whether an operation had been conducted in Karaorman village in February 1994. 43. On 27 December 1996 the deputy commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters replied to the Kulp Prosecutor in writing, stating that according to the records at the Headquarters, no operation had been conducted in Karaorman village or in Sesveren hamlet in February 1994. 44. Another statement was taken from the applicant on 12 May 1997 by the Kulp Prosecutor. The applicant confirmed, once more, her allegations and added that she had made an application to the Commission. 45. On 26 May 1997 the Kulp Prosecutor informed the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court that he had taken another statement from the applicant and that she still had not heard from her son. He further informed him that his efforts to find Cevdet Yılmaz, Ziya Çiçek and Reşat Pamuk, who had allegedly seen Mehdi Akdeniz in the custody of gendarmes, would continue. 46. The applicant was questioned on 21 July 1997, this time by the Prosecutor in the town of Silvan. She confirmed her allegations. 47. On 15 December 1997 the applicant was questioned once more by the Kulp Prosecutor. She repeated her allegations and added that she had nothing to add to her previous statements. 48. On that same day the Kulp Prosecutor also took a statement from Ziya Çiçek, the fifth person who had allegedly been detained together with the applicant’s son. Mr Çiçek confirmed the version of events given by the other four persons who claimed to have been detained with the applicant’s son. 49. The Kulp Prosecutor informed the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court on 16 December 1997 that he had taken yet another statement from the applicant and that he had found out from her that her son was still missing. 50. On 14 January 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor asked the Kulp and Silvan District Gendarme Headquarters, the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Headquarters and also the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters to send to his office copies of custody records showing the names of persons who had been taken into custody between 20 February 1994 and 10 January 1995 at their respective Headquarters. 51. On 24 January 1998 the commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters forwarded to the Kulp Prosecutor’s office the names of those persons detained between 20 February 1994 and 10 January 1995. According to this letter, Halit Akdeniz, Ziya Çiçek, Mehmet Allahverdi, İrfan Akdeniz and Faik Akdeniz had been taken into custody on 28 February 1994 on suspicion of collaborating with the PKK. No information was provided in the column showing dates of release. 52. On 27 January 1998 the Directorate asked the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court for information about the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son. 53. The Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court was informed on 2 February 1998 by the Kulp Prosecutor that the statements taken from Halit Akdeniz, İrfan Akdeniz, Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi, Faik Akdeniz and Ziya Çiçek corroborated the allegations of the applicant. His efforts to obtain information from the gendarme as to whether the applicant’s son had indeed been detained by them were still continuing. The applicant’s son was still missing. 54. On 16 February 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor took a statement from Reşat Pamuk. Mr Pamuk stated that he used to live in the village of Yayık, near the town of Kulp. He and a number of his friends had been taken into detention by soldiers in the town of Silvan during the month of Ramadan in 1994. During his time in detention he had not seen Mehdi Akdeniz, the applicant’s son; in any event, he did not know who Mehdi Akdeniz was. 55. In a reply of 24 February 1998 to the Kulp Prosecutor’s letter of 14 January 1998, the chief of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters stated that Mehdi Akdeniz had not been detained by the police. 56. Also on 24 February 1998 the Directorate asked the Prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır Court to verify the accuracy of the contents of the statements given by the persons who claimed to have been detained together with the applicant’s son. This letter was forwarded to the Kulp Prosecutor the same day. 57. On 25 February 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor drew the attention of the commander of the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters to the fact that the release dates of the five persons detained on 28 February 1998 did not appear in the form he had received (see paragraph 51 above). The Prosecutor asked the commander to inform his office as to what action had been taken in relation to these persons. It appears that the gendarme commander subsequently complied with this request. According to the custody records of the Kulp Central Gendarme Station, Halit Akdeniz, Ziya Çiçek, Mehmet Allahverdi, İrfan Akdeniz and Faik Akdeniz had been detained there from 8 p.m. on 28 February 1994 until 9 a.m. on 5 March 1994 when they had been transferred to the Diyarbakır Court. 58. According to a set of custody records, showing the names of those detained at the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Headquarters between 24 February 1994 and 21 March 1994, the five men had been detained there on 5 March 1994 until their release was ordered by the Diyarbakır Court on 8 March 1994. 59. On 16 March 1998 the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court forwarded to the Directorate a number of documents concerning the criminal proceedings which had been brought against İrfan Akdeniz, Mehmet Allahverdi and Faik Akdeniz following their detention in February 1994 (see paragraph 23 above). According to these documents, the three persons had been tried and acquitted of the offence of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation. 60. On 25 March 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor once again asked the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters for the names of those detained in Karaorman village since 20 February 1994. 61. On 11 April 1998 the commander of the Sivrice Gendarme Station stated in a report that no operation had been conducted in Karaorman village on 20 February 1994 by soldiers from his station. 62. Mehmet Nuri Sansar, the headman (muhtar) of the Karaorman village at the time of the alleged events, was questioned by the Kulp Prosecutor on 15 April 1998. Mr Sansar stated that on 20 February 1994 he had been in the Karaorman village mosque praying, when two soldiers had come in and asked those present to leave the mosque. Mr Sansar and the villagers in the mosque had complied with this order and left the mosque. Mr Sansar had then seen that the village had been surrounded by soldiers and that the villagers had been gathered outside the village. The commander of the soldiers had called Mr Sansar over and told him that food supplies had been brought to the Karaorman village by vehicles and that, from the village, they had been taken by mules to the PKK in the mountains. The commander asked Mr Sansar for the identity of the villagers who had carried the foodstuff to the PKK. When Mr Sansar replied that he did not know, the soldiers had taken him away and beaten him. Among the soldiers there had also been an itirafçı, whose face was covered. The itirafçı had not spoken a word but pointed to the six persons. All six persons had been taken away and all but Mehdi Akdeniz had been released some time later. 63. Cevdet Yılmaz (see paragraphs 30 and 38 above) was questioned by a Prosecutor on 29 April 1998. Mr Yılmaz stated that he used to live in Yayık village, near Sesveren hamlet where Mehdi Akdeniz used to live. He further stated that in February 1994 he had been arrested and taken to a detention centre in Silvan where he had seen Mehdi Akdeniz. However, unlike all other detainees, Mehdi had not subsequently been brought before the judge at the Diyarbakır Court. 64. On 22 May 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor asked his opposite number in the town of Silvan to enquire with the Gendarme Headquarters in the latter’s town to verify whether, as alleged by a number of eye-witnesses, Mehdi Akdeniz had ever been detained there. 65. On 22 May 1998 the Kulp Prosecutor also asked the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Headquarters whether an operation had been carried out in Karaorman village where, according to the allegations, Mehdi Akdeniz was arrested by soldiers. 66. On 13 June 1998 the commander of the Silvan District Gendarme Headquarters informed the Silvan Prosecutor that, according to the custody records, Mehdi Akdeniz had not been detained at the Headquarters in February 1994. 67. On 29 June 1998 the deputy commander of the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarme Headquarters replied to the Kulp Prosecutor’s letter of 22 May 1998 and stated that no operation had been carried out in the region of Karaorman village in February 1994.

4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Germany. 5. The applicant wrote an article entitled “Kurdistan: will it become a common colony of Europe?” in “Newroz”, a weekly newspaper published in Istanbul. 6. The article read: “The Turkish bourgeoisie has being advancing their intention of associating with the European Community since the date of the Treaty of Rome. However, the economic and political problems of Turkey have not been solved since that date. The conditions for association have not been established either. On the other hand, the founders of the European Union are not keen on taking on board a huge problem with its fifteen million unemployed people and serious economic and social problems. Considering the still unresolved problems of German unification and the unexpected economic integration of East European countries, the acceptance of Turkey by the Community definitely seems impossible. However, Europe does not want to keep out Turkey completely. It is keen on keeping Turkey within its hinterland as an investment area and a market. The dilemma of either being part of Europe or outside Europe is a common thread. Briefly, the structural problem of Turkey and the unwillingness of Europe for association with it intersect. On the one hand, the pressures on Turkey from the various institutions of European association on matters such as “Democracy”, “Human Rights”, “the Kurdish Problem”, etc. reflect the reaction of domestic public opinion in Europe. On the other hand, these pressures are being used as an excuse to keep Turkey out. The above issue has to be emphasised in order to point out the defects in the sincerity both of the approaches to the solution of the Kurdish problem and the idea that the European institutions are the purest supporters of democracy and human rights. The customs union seems an acquired right or an opportunity for Turkey. However, it also seems very difficult for Turkey, having regard to her political and economical problems. The way to the customs union and the European Union will result in important changes for the Kurdish National Movement. In the first instance, Kurdistan, already shared by the colonialist Middle East States, will become a common colony of Europe along with her Turkish part. Accordingly, Kurdistan's political and social problems which originate from her colonial status will be directly addressed to Europe. It will become easier for Turkey to control Kurdistan by economic means than has been the case with its control through military force and political violence. This means that Kurdistan will become an economic and political environment for Turkey such that she will have neither the need for, nor the possibility to keep, Kurdistan as a classic colony. One of the direct political effects of this situation will be Europe's insistence on the direct application of its rules to solve the Kurdish problem. Europe is closely interested in both national matters and in the Kurdistan problem and has its own experiences of colonialism. Another political effect is that most of the Kurdish refugee organisations in Europe are supporting and promoting the European solution. This approach considers the future of the Kurdish community in a Turkish Republic associated with Europe. Kurdish intellectuals in Europe are also supporting this approach and conveying their political message to Kurdistan. Any possible tension with Europe will have a direct effect on the politics of the subject groups. The improvement of relations or a possible customs union with the European Union will benefit this approach and will have increased political effect or will gain more acceptance from the Turkish Government in consequence. However, the Kurdish Revolution has already abolished the classical colonial conditions and has stressed the need for a local/national solution. The dimensions of the problem and the strict militarist bureaucracy of the Turkish political structure prove that Europe is not and will not be the determining factor for either Turkey or Kurdistan.” 7. On 13 February 1995 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court accused the applicant of disseminating propaganda against the unity of the Turkish nation and the “indivisible unity of the State”. He requested, inter alia, that the applicant be convicted under section 8 of Law No. 3713. He relied on the terms of the above article in support of his application. During the proceedings an amendment to section 8 entered into force (Law no. 4126) and, in consequence, the public prosecutor pressed for the applicant's conviction on the strength of the new amendment which increased the level of the fine for the offence with which he was charged but reduced the term of imprisonment which could be imposed. 8. In the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant acknowledged that he had drafted the article and asserted that the expression of an opinion could not constitute an offence. 9. On 13 December 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, found the applicant guilty as charged. It ruled that the impugned article referred to a particular region of Turkey as “Kurdistan” and that the applicant's comments, taken as a whole, amounted to separatist propaganda. The court sentenced the applicant under section 8(1) of Law no. 3713, as amended by Law no. 4126, to one year, eight months and ten days' imprisonment and a fine of 111,111,111 Turkish liras (TRL) (847 euros (EUR)), to be paid in twenty monthly instalments. 10. On 12 June 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the State Security Court. The judgment of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the Registry of the first-instance court on 10 July 1997.